CDZ If weapons of war need to be banned, should this weapon be banned as well?

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you! And SCOTUS will be ruling again on "weapons of war" as the case makes it way to SCOTUS!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Yup. They are against the Geneva convention anyway so nobody should be using them in wa either.

Why on earth are they against the convention?

Have you ever seen the wound a close range load of buckshot leaves?

Yes, I have... A shotgun is the best defense firearm to have in any house and only a fool would want them made illegal!

 

[there4eyeM]

Yup. They are against the Geneva convention anyway so nobody should be using them in wa either.

Why on earth are they against the convention?

Have you ever seen the wound a close range load of buckshot leaves?

Yes, I have... A shotgun is the best defense firearm to have in any house and only a fool would want them made illegal!

Well, as a homeowner, you would have a lot of dry wall to replace. Then, there's the, uh, 'mess'. However, probably your wife was not raped and your daughter abducted. Pretty effective, and it is true that the famous sound of a pump action is a mighty deterrent in itself.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Yup. They are against the Geneva convention anyway so nobody should be using them in wa either.

Why on earth are they against the convention?

Have you ever seen the wound a close range load of buckshot leaves?

Yes, I have... A shotgun is the best defense firearm to have in any house and only a fool would want them made illegal!

Well, as a homeowner, you would have a lot of dry wall to replace. Then, there's the, uh, 'mess'. However, probably your wife was not raped and your daughter abducted. Pretty effective, and it is true that the famous sound of a pump action is a mighty deterrent in itself.

Dry wall is cheaper than replacing a wife or daughter or son...

Also if anyone has owned a shotgun they would know you can use bird shot, slug, bean bag, rock salt and buck in it...

First two rounds are bird in mine then slug afterwards...

Yeah, the mess is worth it and the pump is scary as hell...

 

[2aguy]

SCOTUS rules, period.

Good, then you agree, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment as are all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS rules, period.

Good, then you agree, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment as are all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....

Thank you, which means, until the states rule differently and SCOTUS agrees with that, I know you will support SCOTUS when that happens.

 

[2aguy]

SCOTUS rules, period.

Good, then you agree, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment as are all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....

You bet, until the states rule differently and SCOTUS agrees with that, and I know you will support SCOTUS when that happens.

No....the SCOTUS is supposed to protect the Constitution which protects individual Rights...if states start to make laws and their courts make rulings that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then the Feds have to step in and stop them...just like during Jim Crow when the democrats were breaking the law, ignoring Supreme Court rulings and violating the Rights of Black Americans...

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS rules, period.

Good, then you agree, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment as are all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....

You bet, until the states rule differently and SCOTUS agrees with that, and I know you will support SCOTUS when that happens.

No....the SCOTUS is supposed to protect the Constitution which protects individual Rights...if states start to make laws and their courts make rulings that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then the Feds have to step in and stop them...just like during Jim Crow when the democrats were breaking the law, ignoring Supreme Court rulings and violating the Rights of Black Americans...

How changing the laws works at the state and federal levels remains uniform. SCOTUS has reserved the right to uphold, change, amend, or overrule the states or previous SCOTUS's decisions on the 2dA. It may well do so on "weapons of war" when the case reaches it.

 

[2aguy]

SCOTUS rules, period.

Good, then you agree, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment as are all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....

You bet, until the states rule differently and SCOTUS agrees with that, and I know you will support SCOTUS when that happens.

No....the SCOTUS is supposed to protect the Constitution which protects individual Rights...if states start to make laws and their courts make rulings that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then the Feds have to step in and stop them...just like during Jim Crow when the democrats were breaking the law, ignoring Supreme Court rulings and violating the Rights of Black Americans...

No . . . you are not SCOTUS, and how changing the laws works at the state and federal levels remains uniform. SCOTUS has reserved the right to uphold, change, amend, or overrule the states or previous SCOTUS's decisions on the 2dA. It may well do so on "weapons of war" when the case reaches it.

As the Decision in Heller Pointed out...the Right to Keep and Bear arms is not dependent on the Constitution, it is a pre existing Right, and 5, politically appointed lawyers don't get to strip that God given Right because they don't like guns....

 

[there4eyeM]

'God' may be subpoenaed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS rules, period.

Good, then you agree, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment as are all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.....

You bet, until the states rule differently and SCOTUS agrees with that, and I know you will support SCOTUS when that happens.

No....the SCOTUS is supposed to protect the Constitution which protects individual Rights...if states start to make laws and their courts make rulings that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then the Feds have to step in and stop them...just like during Jim Crow when the democrats were breaking the law, ignoring Supreme Court rulings and violating the Rights of Black Americans...

No . . . you are not SCOTUS, and how changing the laws works at the state and federal levels remains uniform. SCOTUS has reserved the right to uphold, change, amend, or overrule the states or previous SCOTUS's decisions on the 2dA. It may well do so on "weapons of war" when the case reaches it.

As the Decision in Heller Pointed out...the Right to Keep and Bear arms is not dependent on the Constitution, it is a pre existing Right, and 5, politically appointed lawyers don't get to strip that God given Right because they don't like guns....

. . . which the SCOTUS says the authority to interpret, amend, change, overrule, or leave along rests with it only.

As an aside: if SCOTUS decides that you, in your every day rounds as an every day citizen, cannot have a certain type of "weapon of war", well, that's the end of it legally for you. You can protest peacefully, nothing more.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

You really don't know what you are talking about...but you say it with such meaning that the uninformed might believe you.

The AR-15 is not a public safety issue, more people are killed by wasps and bees than by AR-15 rifles, and more people are killed by lawn mowers than are killed in mass public shootings by all gun types, let alone AR-15 rifles....

And just so we are clear, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment, as stated by Scalia specifically in his Dissent in Friedman v Highland Park....

For those who won't go an actually read the Supreme Court rulings that create the legal Precedent protecting semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.......here you go....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

You cherry picked it. In the end, it was found that a community CAN force one specific weapon like the AR out of it's community. Dissenting means that the justice is voicing for the losing side and not the winning side. Heller only dealt with handguns in the home. It didn't deal with guns in the streets either open carry or concealed. It didn't deal with ARs and the like. It is strictly handguns in the District of Columbia. And Heller has no bearing on any state ruling because they are not a State.

You people keep going back to a ruling that has nothing to do with a State Ruling at all. So far, the State has the right to do almost anything they wish when it comes to Firearms with the exception of total banning of them. And each time, if it's found that a certain class of weapons is a public safety issue then they can regulate them almost into extinction. Not ban them but regulate them. For instance, you have the right to have a concealed weapon in New York City. You have the right to apply for it. The City has the right to lose your paperwork, place your paperwork in the until hell freezes over basket and more. But they don't take that right from you. That would be illegal. But nothing says they can't put together a set of rules that makes it almost impossible for you to get that carry permit. This doesn't make it right, only legal.

I suppose you want to live in a world where everyone is armed. That worked out well until after 1850. Before that, all personal sidearms were single shot and had to be reloaded which was a slow process. You got one shot. If you missed (highly probably) you were now in either a knife fight or a fist fight. Most disagreements were settled either verbally or through fist fights and no one died that day. But something happened. The exact year is 1847 when Texas Ranger Captain Walker came into Colt's store and they talked guns. What came out of it was the Walker Colt 6 Gun. Before that Colt produced a 5 shot revolver that wasn't that popular. The Walker Colt was only made in a 1000 gun run but it was the first of many other types of revolvers. The Walker Colt was the first of a long line of guns made by a lot of other manufacturers like Remington and Smith and Wesson. It was cheap at 11.50 a pop (the Remington sold for 12 bucks) and were rugged. You only had to buy it once. It got to be the Cowboys right hand tool for many uses including using it as a hammer, killing snakes, defending against indians and brigands and more. Cowboys were notoriously really bad shots with a hand gun. After the Civil War, there were thousands of the Walker Colts and Remingtons available for a song and a dance. They made it west along with the separated troops headed west. The problem was, in towns, the Cowboys would get liquored up and start shooting things up. Remember when I stated that they were really poor shots? Towns people were being accidently killed by errant bullets. Petty arguments were settled with the guns. Many towns weren't safe to even walk down the streets in broad daylight. Hence the barring of the carrying of firearms within city limits. That started to being passed throughout the west starting in 1871. While there is a lot of speculation on the reasons for the OK Corral, the real fact is, the Cowboys refused to surrender their firearms and the Marshals had the job of forcing them to. It went to hell from there. And the Penney Dreadfuls took it from there as well. Those laws stood for more than 100 years.

I really don't think we are any more civilized than they were back then. If it goes back where everyone is carrying there is going to be a lot of needless killing to go with it. Didn't you learn a damned thing from our history?

 

[2aguy]

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

You really don't know what you are talking about...but you say it with such meaning that the uninformed might believe you.

The AR-15 is not a public safety issue, more people are killed by wasps and bees than by AR-15 rifles, and more people are killed by lawn mowers than are killed in mass public shootings by all gun types, let alone AR-15 rifles....

And just so we are clear, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment, as stated by Scalia specifically in his Dissent in Friedman v Highland Park....

For those who won't go an actually read the Supreme Court rulings that create the legal Precedent protecting semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.......here you go....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

You cherry picked it. In the end, it was found that a community CAN force one specific weapon like the AR out of it's community. Dissenting means that the justice is voicing for the losing side and not the winning side. Heller only dealt with handguns in the home. It didn't deal with guns in the streets either open carry or concealed. It didn't deal with ARs and the like. It is strictly handguns in the District of Columbia. And Heller has no bearing on any state ruling because they are not a State.

You people keep going back to a ruling that has nothing to do with a State Ruling at all. So far, the State has the right to do almost anything they wish when it comes to Firearms with the exception of total banning of them. And each time, if it's found that a certain class of weapons is a public safety issue then they can regulate them almost into extinction. Not ban them but regulate them. For instance, you have the right to have a concealed weapon in New York City. You have the right to apply for it. The City has the right to lose your paperwork, place your paperwork in the until hell freezes over basket and more. But they don't take that right from you. That would be illegal. But nothing says they can't put together a set of rules that makes it almost impossible for you to get that carry permit. This doesn't make it right, only legal.

I suppose you want to live in a world where everyone is armed. That worked out well until after 1850. Before that, all personal sidearms were single shot and had to be reloaded which was a slow process. You got one shot. If you missed (highly probably) you were now in either a knife fight or a fist fight. Most disagreements were settled either verbally or through fist fights and no one died that day. But something happened. The exact year is 1847 when Texas Ranger Captain Walker came into Colt's store and they talked guns. What came out of it was the Walker Colt 6 Gun. Before that Colt produced a 5 shot revolver that wasn't that popular. The Walker Colt was only made in a 1000 gun run but it was the first of many other types of revolvers. The Walker Colt was the first of a long line of guns made by a lot of other manufacturers like Remington and Smith and Wesson. It was cheap at 11.50 a pop (the Remington sold for 12 bucks) and were rugged. You only had to buy it once. It got to be the Cowboys right hand tool for many uses including using it as a hammer, killing snakes, defending against indians and brigands and more. Cowboys were notoriously really bad shots with a hand gun. After the Civil War, there were thousands of the Walker Colts and Remingtons available for a song and a dance. They made it west along with the separated troops headed west. The problem was, in towns, the Cowboys would get liquored up and start shooting things up. Remember when I stated that they were really poor shots? Towns people were being accidently killed by errant bullets. Petty arguments were settled with the guns. Many towns weren't safe to even walk down the streets in broad daylight. Hence the barring of the carrying of firearms within city limits. That started to being passed throughout the west starting in 1871. While there is a lot of speculation on the reasons for the OK Corral, the real fact is, the Cowboys refused to surrender their firearms and the Marshals had the job of forcing them to. It went to hell from there. And the Penney Dreadfuls took it from there as well. Those laws stood for more than 100 years.

I really don't think we are any more civilized than they were back then. If it goes back where everyone is carrying there is going to be a lot of needless killing to go with it. Didn't you learn a damned thing from our history?

I didn't cherry pick anything.....and you can post fake history all day long, Scalia named AR-15 rifles and semi auto rifles.....

Heller stated that all bearable arms are protected and he followed up with Friedman v Highland park...

You don't know what you are talking about.......these courts are ignoring the Supreme Court, they do not get to do anything they want with the 2nd Amendment.....

 

[2aguy]

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

You really don't know what you are talking about...but you say it with such meaning that the uninformed might believe you.

The AR-15 is not a public safety issue, more people are killed by wasps and bees than by AR-15 rifles, and more people are killed by lawn mowers than are killed in mass public shootings by all gun types, let alone AR-15 rifles....

And just so we are clear, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment, as stated by Scalia specifically in his Dissent in Friedman v Highland Park....

For those who won't go an actually read the Supreme Court rulings that create the legal Precedent protecting semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.......here you go....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

You cherry picked it. In the end, it was found that a community CAN force one specific weapon like the AR out of it's community. Dissenting means that the justice is voicing for the losing side and not the winning side. Heller only dealt with handguns in the home. It didn't deal with guns in the streets either open carry or concealed. It didn't deal with ARs and the like. It is strictly handguns in the District of Columbia. And Heller has no bearing on any state ruling because they are not a State.

You people keep going back to a ruling that has nothing to do with a State Ruling at all. So far, the State has the right to do almost anything they wish when it comes to Firearms with the exception of total banning of them. And each time, if it's found that a certain class of weapons is a public safety issue then they can regulate them almost into extinction. Not ban them but regulate them. For instance, you have the right to have a concealed weapon in New York City. You have the right to apply for it. The City has the right to lose your paperwork, place your paperwork in the until hell freezes over basket and more. But they don't take that right from you. That would be illegal. But nothing says they can't put together a set of rules that makes it almost impossible for you to get that carry permit. This doesn't make it right, only legal.

I suppose you want to live in a world where everyone is armed. That worked out well until after 1850. Before that, all personal sidearms were single shot and had to be reloaded which was a slow process. You got one shot. If you missed (highly probably) you were now in either a knife fight or a fist fight. Most disagreements were settled either verbally or through fist fights and no one died that day. But something happened. The exact year is 1847 when Texas Ranger Captain Walker came into Colt's store and they talked guns. What came out of it was the Walker Colt 6 Gun. Before that Colt produced a 5 shot revolver that wasn't that popular. The Walker Colt was only made in a 1000 gun run but it was the first of many other types of revolvers. The Walker Colt was the first of a long line of guns made by a lot of other manufacturers like Remington and Smith and Wesson. It was cheap at 11.50 a pop (the Remington sold for 12 bucks) and were rugged. You only had to buy it once. It got to be the Cowboys right hand tool for many uses including using it as a hammer, killing snakes, defending against indians and brigands and more. Cowboys were notoriously really bad shots with a hand gun. After the Civil War, there were thousands of the Walker Colts and Remingtons available for a song and a dance. They made it west along with the separated troops headed west. The problem was, in towns, the Cowboys would get liquored up and start shooting things up. Remember when I stated that they were really poor shots? Towns people were being accidently killed by errant bullets. Petty arguments were settled with the guns. Many towns weren't safe to even walk down the streets in broad daylight. Hence the barring of the carrying of firearms within city limits. That started to being passed throughout the west starting in 1871. While there is a lot of speculation on the reasons for the OK Corral, the real fact is, the Cowboys refused to surrender their firearms and the Marshals had the job of forcing them to. It went to hell from there. And the Penney Dreadfuls took it from there as well. Those laws stood for more than 100 years.

I really don't think we are any more civilized than they were back then. If it goes back where everyone is carrying there is going to be a lot of needless killing to go with it. Didn't you learn a damned thing from our history?

Wow.....that made up history is really interesting, too bad it lacks one little bit of truth to it...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Scalia wrote in the minority, did he not?

SCOTUS opined its preeminence in sustaining, amending, changing, or overruling 2dA rulings, did it not?

You are worried about SCOTUS ruling in the near future on 'weapons of war', are you not?

 

[2aguy]

Scalia wrote in the minority, did he not?

SCOTUS opined its preeminence in sustaining, amending, changing, or overruling 2dA rulings, did it not?

You are worried about SCOTUS ruling in the near future on 'weapons of war', are you not?

In Friedman v Highland Park the court did not grant Cert for the case, and Scalia wrote a dissent....and in that dissent he explained that the AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amendment...

The Supreme Court already ruled on weapons of war in Staples v United States...notice the wording...

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

 

[2aguy]

Scalia wrote in the minority, did he not?

SCOTUS opined its preeminence in sustaining, amending, changing, or overruling 2dA rulings, did it not?

You are worried about SCOTUS ruling in the near future on 'weapons of war', are you not?

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the 2nd Amendment over and over again....

D.C v Heller
Caetano v Massachusetts
Miller v United States
Macdonald v City of Chicago
Friedman v Highland Park


The Precedents have already been established.....the lower courts know that there are 4 social justice warrior anti gunners on the case and Kennedy......they know that they can get away with lying about the 2nd Amendment unless Trump appoints 1 or two more real Justices to the Court....

 

[JakeStarkey]

And SCOTUS will rule again on the 2dA.