Here’s the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it’s simply ludicrous

[whitehall]

How many people actually tell CNN's Michael Fanone why they want to buy a Ar15? Who in their right mind would consult with a left wing media outlet before purchasing an AR15? Show us the trannie terrorist manifest and then we will talk.

 

[Concerned American]

It’s as true now as it was over a year ago – as true now as always:

There is no ‘need’ to possess an AR pattern rifle/carbine; it’s a want, not a need.

And there’s nothing wrong with wanting to possess an AR 15 for whatever personal, subjective reason – target shooting or personal defense.

But one shouldn’t try to advance the ridiculous lie that one ‘needs’ an AR 15 to defend against ‘government tyranny,’ it’s factually untrue.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that recognizes insurrectionist dogma; nothing that recognizes the wrongheaded notion that armed citizens alone, absent government authorization, not members of a government authorized and regulated militia, are sanctioned to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

What Second Amendment case law does say is that private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – only state governments and the Federal government have that authority (Presser v. Illinois (1886)).

With private citizens alone lacking the authority to form a militia and ‘take up arms’ against ‘the government,’ they also lack the ‘need’ to possess particular firearms, such as AR 15s.

Consequently, the ‘need’ argument in opposition to AWBs is devoid of merit.

The argument of merit against AWBs is that they constitute government excess and overreach, that they fail even a rational basis justification, and that they would not have the desired outcome of reducing gun crime and violence.

And your point is?

 

[AZrailwhale]

A Weapon & a tool are not the same

I beg to differ. A weapon is a tool for defense or acquisition of the necessities of life.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Wrong.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010.

Prior to that it applied only to the Federal government.

And the Federal government has always had the authority to regulate firearms.

If you look at the various state constitutions, most or all of them have something similar to the Second Amendment in them.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Wrong.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010.

Prior to that it applied only to the Federal government.

And the Federal government has always had the authority to regulate firearms.

Wrong, the federal government gave itself that right in the thirties with the National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, your 2nd. amendment does not say that you can buy an AR-15. In fact it likely doesn't say anything about buying potatoes or cabbage or anything.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘say’ one cannot buy an AR 15.

Indeed, the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘say’ anything at all about AR 15s, the Supreme Court having never ruled on laws regulating assault weapons.

 

[toobfreak]

Possessing an AR 15 is a want, not a ‘need.’

Kinda like a car. No one NEEDS a car, yet everyone has one, just as cars kill many more people than AR-15s yet we still sell them.

In a free society, no one should need to justify their "need" to buy anything, but as we all know, those grand ol' democrats are NOT about a free society for anyone but THEMSELVES.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ‘need’ to possess an AR 15 lie is of course a dishonest, pathetic attempt by conservatives to oppose a ‘ban’ that isn’t coming – there’s no political will in Washington for a new AWB and the courts would never allow such a ‘ban’ to be enforced.

Lying about the ‘need’ to possess an AR 15 is more partisan dishonesty and demagoguery from the right intended to keep the base ignorant, frightened, and going to the polls.

 

[toobfreak]

Lying about the ‘need’ to possess an AR 15 is more partisan dishonesty and demagoguery from the right intended to keep the base ignorant, frightened, and going to the polls.

Don't forget going to the gun shops. Holding a gun in your hand naturally just makes you WANT to vote Republican!

 

[Smokin' OP]

All enemies Foreign & Domestic

 

[Smokin' OP]

More so domestic

 

[Blues Man]

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘say’ one cannot buy an AR 15.

Indeed, the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘say’ anything at all about AR 15s, the Supreme Court having never ruled on laws regulating assault weapons.

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon"

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about electronic communication so you should write your posts on parchment with quill and ink and have them delivered to the people you want to see your post by a man on horseback.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The ‘need’ to possess an AR 15 lie is of course a dishonest, pathetic attempt by conservatives to oppose a ‘ban’ that isn’t coming – there’s no political will in Washington for a new AWB and the courts would never allow such a ‘ban’ to be enforced.

Lying about the ‘need’ to possess an AR 15 is more partisan dishonesty and demagoguery from the right intended to keep the base ignorant, frightened, and going to the polls.

Dumbfuck show me the word need in the bill of rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Smokin' OP why don't you comment and show me the word need in the bill of rights. Instead of drive-by rating

 

[Smokin' OP]

View attachment 809644

Too funny, teabaggers STILL trying to conflate the two different instances.
Were there any government leaders in those buildings?
Were there any votes for the president being counted, in those buildings?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘say’ one cannot buy an AR 15.

Indeed, the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘say’ anything at all about AR 15s, the Supreme Court having never ruled on laws regulating assault weapons.

Assault weapon would be the one that has select fire on it semi automatic to automatic.
So I believe that's a settled issue 1989 gun bill

 

[Smokin' OP]

Smokin' OP why don't you comment and show me the word need in the bill of rights. Instead of drive-by rating

Don't have to.
Teabaggers think, they should be able to possess any weapon they want, with no training no license and no experience.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Too funny, teabaggers STILL trying to conflate the two different instances.
Were there any government leaders in those buildings?
Were there any votes for the president being counted, in those buildings?

What I posted was acts of terrorism

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't have to.
Teabaggers think, they should be able to possess any weapon they want, with no training no license and no experience.

Show me the word need in the bill of rights?