CDZ What is the difference between a Machine Gun and an AR-15?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by MarathonMike, Aug 10, 2019.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,802
    Thanks Received:
    2,305
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,441
    It should be noted...
    The LV shooter fired 1100 rounds, with 480 hits (58 Killed, 422 wounded) for a 43.6% hit rate,
    This is impressively low, given the target and distance.

    Indeed, the casualties caused by LV shooter was -limited- by the fact he used a number of AR15s with bump stocks - he could have easily killed and wounded significantly more people with a different choice of weapon.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,860
    Thanks Received:
    13,642
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +55,967

    Yes.....they did....Scalia stated it in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park, having also written the D.C v Heller opinion......so you are just wrong...

    Scalia first in Heller....then in Friedman...

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52,608
    Thanks Received:
    10,981
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +37,598
    Wrong.

    It’s both a fact and the truth:

    Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.

    As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’

    Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf

    The lie is that banning AR 15s would be 'un-Constitutional', when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.
     
  4. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,802
    Thanks Received:
    2,305
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,441
    It does not matter how many times you repeat your lie, it remains a lie.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  5. Godboy
    Online

    Godboy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,340
    Thanks Received:
    2,606
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +9,953
    You would be extremely innacurate if you were pulling the trigger 2 times per second. If you really wanted to kill a bunch of people, you would need to take your time in order to steady and aim your gun.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,860
    Thanks Received:
    13,642
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +55,967

    You and those judges are wrong....as I pointed out with the actual ruling from Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Friedman v Highland Park...

    Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second

    And that quote shows that this court is a rogue court......that is completely ignoring 2nd Amendment Case law and 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence from multiple decisions by the Supreme Court...hoping that the Supreme Court will fail to hear cases that will strike down their decision here....

    First...Heller...... then Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller stating that the AR-15 rifle, by name, is protected by the 2nd Amendment.....making your quote and their decision unConstitutional...

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

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

    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.
     
  7. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,860
    Thanks Received:
    13,642
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +55,967

    And again.....Justice Alito stating that the "dangerous and unusual" statement in Heller does not ban these rifles....

    ...from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

    ....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

    clayton..... you are a hack.....this court knows they are violating the Constitution, and multiple rulings from the Supreme Court....hoping that Roberts will bend to popular pressure and not take up their case to slap it down as ignoring the Supreme Court...

    Caetano v Massachusetts already settled the "Dangerous and Unusual" lie that this court is using......

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf


    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

    Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

    ----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


    That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

    First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).


    Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

    Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


    Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

    If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

    The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

    But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


    Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


    554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

    In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  8. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,860
    Thanks Received:
    13,642
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +55,967

    And claytion also knows that this ruling would allow banning all semi-automatic rifles, pistols, shotguns and they could even squeeze in revolvers...since they all operate the same way.....
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    56,408
    Thanks Received:
    9,064
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +41,349
    If a rifle automatically loads a new round/'bullet' after the previous one is fired, it is a semi-automatic. If it also automatically fires when reloaded, then it is a full automatic rifle.

    A round = a bullet + casing, powder and primer. It is the full enchilada.

    A magazine holds multiple rounds and generally uses a spring to push the next one up to be reloaded as the new loaded round.


    High powered rounds tend to pass through muscle and skin without extra damage, and unless they hit an organ or a bone that makes it ricochet, it will be just a through and through wound which are generally minor.

    A shotgun does much more damage, like my 12 gauge I have loaded with extra pellet 0-0 buckshot. That can cut a person in half if they are skinny, lol. I load for fat criminals, lol.

    A 0-0 buckshoit pellet is about the same size as a 9mm bullet and my 12 gauge rounds throw about 12 down range. It could ruin someone's day, for sure.

    In combat infantry teamms, there is generally only one full auto guy whose role is to defend the base line of fire, which is basically the line right in front of his own men and oversees a critical field of fire. For example, if you are trying to control a road, you would put your men on the highest ground near a turn in the road, and have the full auto guy posted at the curve in such a way that he is able to aim down the road and also clear the area immediately in front of his squad of men.

    The full auto guy also carries lot of ammunition as he will go through it like mad. Even he has to control how much he uses his ammo so he wont run out or melt his barrel and warp it.

    Everyone else should be on single shot fire or they will run out of ammo too quickly. IMO a three round burst is still too much, as the second round is usually off two to four inches, depending on distance to the target, and the third round is off a whole lot more, a foot or more, and is wasted ammo. You only use full auto if a lot of bad guys are trying to over run your position. But that is why you should have obstacles, trip wires and some sort of mine in front of your position, generally.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  10. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    56,408
    Thanks Received:
    9,064
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +41,349
    AKA 'suppressive fire'.

    BTW a round is not quite the same thing as a bullet, though I am guessing you know that, lol, but just for the record.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page