Actually in this instance we are, you just think you can stop a speeding freight train by standing in it's way.
CNN: AR15 lowers are -not- firearms
- Thread starter M14 Shooter
- Start date
No I'm an observer, a chronicler. My personal opinions and desires have no bearing on reality.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 71,155
- 45,427
- 2,615
Well that goes without saying......... To those who wish to think that....... Heck, next you'll be calling me a libtard....... Of course the ultra liberals all call me a Trumptard..... Ain't perspective funny.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 71,155
- 45,427
- 2,615
Well that goes without saying......... To those who wish to think that....... Heck, next you'll be calling me a libtard....... Of course the ultra liberals all call me a Trumptard..... Ain't perspective funny.
I was talking about the 2nd and dont lower myself to making generalizations like that,,,
and to support the 2nd A in its original intent is a liberal view,,
both libtards and trumptards are also against the 2nd when you pin them down,,,
you would have done better to just say thank you for your opinion after my second comment,,,
And what would have been the fun in that?Well that goes without saying......... To those who wish to think that....... Heck, next you'll be calling me a libtard....... Of course the ultra liberals all call me a Trumptard..... Ain't perspective funny.
I was talking about the 2nd and dont lower myself to making generalizations like that,,,
and to support the 2nd A in its original intent is a liberal view,,
both libtards and trumptards are also against the 2nd when you pin them down,,,
you would have done better to just say thank you for your opinion after my second comment,,,
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
This is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
The truth is that the Obama Administration notified Congress that existing Federal firearm laws were lacking and needed to be updated.
From the linked article:
“The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge's decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.”
It was the Republican controlled Congress that failed to address this issue.
Moreover, complete lower receivers are considered firearms.
Stripped lower receivers and partially complete receivers are regulated as firearms and that hasn’t changed as a matter of law, legislation, or regulatory policy – hence the ATF’s not pursuing a case against Roh, where Judge Selna's likely ruling would jeopardize how the ATF regulates stripped and partially complete receivers, rendering their purchase not subject to a background check.
The ATF’s interpretation and application of Federal firearm laws with regard to AR lower receivers may indeed be invalid, but only the courts have the authority to make that determination – which they have not.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
LOL SMH you are an idiotThis is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
The truth is that the Obama Administration notified Congress that existing Federal firearm laws were lacking and needed to be updated.
From the linked article:
“The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge's decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.”
It was the Republican controlled Congress that failed to address this issue.
Moreover, complete lower receivers are considered firearms.
Stripped lower receivers and partially complete receivers are regulated as firearms and that hasn’t changed as a matter of law, legislation, or regulatory policy – hence the ATF’s not pursuing a case against Roh, where Judge Selna's likely ruling would jeopardize how the ATF regulates stripped and partially complete receivers, rendering their purchase not subject to a background check.
The ATF’s interpretation and application of Federal firearm laws with regard to AR lower receivers may indeed be invalid, but only the courts have the authority to make that determination – which they have not.
When a lower is separated from the upper What exactly makes a lower a firearm and not the upper?
Functionally the upper still can fire a round whereas the lower cannot.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #29
Nothing in my post is a lie.This is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
And you know it.
Pay attention
Lowers, complete or otherwise, do not meet the federal definition or firearm, or receiver.
That, along with The Obama's administration choosing to let criminals go free to protect their agenda, is the entire point of this topic.
This is another lie, as the BATFE also has the authority to make that determination.
Why do you need to lie to make a point?
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #30
No.
Like most liberals, he's intellectually dishonest.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,907
- 1,940
- Banned
- #31
Barry is/was wrong in all cases... end of storyThis is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
The truth is that the Obama Administration notified Congress that existing Federal firearm laws were lacking and needed to be updated.
From the linked article:
“The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge's decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.”
It was the Republican controlled Congress that failed to address this issue.
Moreover, complete lower receivers are considered firearms.
Stripped lower receivers and partially complete receivers are regulated as firearms and that hasn’t changed as a matter of law, legislation, or regulatory policy – hence the ATF’s not pursuing a case against Roh, where Judge Selna's likely ruling would jeopardize how the ATF regulates stripped and partially complete receivers, rendering their purchase not subject to a background check.
The ATF’s interpretation and application of Federal firearm laws with regard to AR lower receivers may indeed be invalid, but only the courts have the authority to make that determination – which they have not.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
but we can count on you to see things from only your perspective and demean others like you scream at liberals for doing.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 71,155
- 45,427
- 2,615
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #35
Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?
That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.
Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?
That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #37
If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?
That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.
They also have a .300 Blackout rig for $499, doesn't have the 5.56 range but it does have the power.If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?
That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #39
I'm not a fan of ARs chambered for boutique rounds -- if 5.56x45 doesn't meet your needs, get a .308.They also have a .300 Blackout rig for $499, doesn't have the 5.56 range but it does have the power.If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.
One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.
The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans
Surprise, surprise.
For reference - an AR lower:
Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?
That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.
Any one of them would meet my needs which are target shooting and that's it, besides I already own a shitload of 7.62x35 rounds (.300 Blackout). I wouldn't call a 7.62x35 a boutique round........I'm not a fan of ARs chambered for boutique rounds -- if 5.56x45 doesn't meet your needs, get a .308.They also have a .300 Blackout rig for $499, doesn't have the 5.56 range but it does have the power.If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?
That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
S.C. should keep its nose out of the birthright citizenship case, which is a political matter
- Started by johnwk
- Replies: 3
-
Trump's answer upon hearing the totalitarian Mullahcracy steps up executions of young women- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 2
-
