Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[freyasman]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

The AR-15 is not high powered....the 5.56 or .22 version of the rifle is weaker than the deer hunting rifle people use every fall....you have no idea what you are talking about or the issues involved........you talk out of your ass and ask questions that reveal your ignorance.....

It's not a matter of this gun or that gun. Why are you people doing this? I'm trying to find out what you folks are so afraid of. So many Americans, like me, are not afraid to live each day in these United States. You are. What gives? What's your neighborhood like? I live in one in northern Virginia in which I can find people from every nation in the world, but there are no problems, and the food is really good.

You are the one who seems to be afraid; why does freedom scare you so much?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

View attachment 469466

Why don't you care?
Shouldn't every American have equal rights as pre the 14th amendment?

 

[freyasman]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

Superiority of firepower. At least parody of firepower. That's why. That's more explanation than you're entitled to.

Why do you need such "firepower"? I am entitled to an explanation because I live in this country and guns are designed to be pointed at other people.

So that I can outgun my attacker, or at lesst be on equal terms. You're all about equal rights. Yes?

Who is your "attacker:? Where in the hell do you live??? I live a few highway stops from the Pentagon and I'm not scared. Are you scared of being in the US?

Why does freedom and liberty terrify you so?

 

[freyasman]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

What is it that you people actually want? I am of the generation where we had guns and shot them at targets. But this gun-crazy thing is very strange. Who do you people want to shoot at? I don't trust you people because you are paranoids with mental problems.

I don't trust people who believe that folks who want to be free are "paranoids with mental problems."
Why does personal liberty and individual freedom cause you to feel such intense terror and hatred?
Is it that you're just an evil person?

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

What is it that you people actually want? I am of the generation where we had guns and shot them at targets. But this gun-crazy thing is very strange. Who do you people want to shoot at? I don't trust you people because you are paranoids with mental problems.

I don't trust people who believe that folks who want to be free are "paranoids with mental problems."
Why does personal liberty and individual freed cause you to feel such intense terror and hatred?
Is it that you're just an evil person?

Socialist countries have clinics for mentally ill people who want "freedom." I think they call them "gulags."

 

[freyasman]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

The AR-15 is not high powered....the 5.56 or .22 version of the rifle is weaker than the deer hunting rifle people use every fall....you have no idea what you are talking about or the issues involved........you talk out of your ass and ask questions that reveal your ignorance.....

It's not a matter of this gun or that gun. Why are you people doing this? I'm trying to find out what you folks are so afraid of. So many Americans, like me, are not afraid to live each day in these United States. You are. What gives? What's your neighborhood like? I live in one in northern Virginia in which I can find people from every nation in the world, but there are no problems, and the food is really good.

So......crime doesn't exist in the U.S.? Anywhere? People are not killed....ever? Raped.....ever? Robbed....ever?

Wow........didn't know that.

Where do live that you fear so much? Who is getting into your house??? Do you have to spray bullets all over the place? Should every household in the US have the capacity to spray bullets? Really. What is your fear?

Why does the idea that your neighbors might not be defenseless concern you so?

What evil thing were you planning to do to them that is made more difficult by their being armed?

 

[freyasman]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

You have yet to explain why you need to know.

Because of the threat posed to me and the whole rest of society. The people who are behind this gun-love movement seem to be mentally ill. We don't know when one of them will open fire. I don't want them in my community. We have always permitted guns. I grew up with them in the house. If someone unwelcome comes in, a .22 pistol will take care of the problem. These insaniacs want to spray bullets. We have had too many mass shootings. Why continue?

So you actually believe that people who value freedom and believe in personal responsibility are mentally ill?




Mystery solved...... you are the problem.

 

[freyasman]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

What is it that you people actually want? I am of the generation where we had guns and shot them at targets. But this gun-crazy thing is very strange. Who do you people want to shoot at? I don't trust you people because you are paranoids with mental problems.

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

Americans owning guns isn't a problem or a concern....the democrat party constantly releasing violent gun criminals, captured committing gun crimes, and gun murder, is what drives our gun crime problem in democrat party controlled cities...

You should ask the democrats why they keep releasing these violent gun criminals...the ones actually doing all of the shooting.

You seem to have a political problem between the Democratic and Republican parties. Perhaps also a racial problem. Who is releasing violent criminals? I'm not into your fantasy. I've never experienced a home invasion. The worst shit that I have ever experienced here in the US was not based on my race or religion or ethnic background. It was based on my gender.

you have never experienced a violent crime so you're convinced that no one else has .

You're so naive you border on being mentally retarded

Border???

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

The AR-15 is not high powered....the 5.56 or .22 version of the rifle is weaker than the deer hunting rifle people use every fall....you have no idea what you are talking about or the issues involved........you talk out of your ass and ask questions that reveal your ignorance.....

It's not a matter of this gun or that gun. Why are you people doing this? I'm trying to find out what you folks are so afraid of. So many Americans, like me, are not afraid to live each day in these United States. You are. What gives? What's your neighborhood like? I live in one in northern Virginia in which I can find people from every nation in the world, but there are no problems, and the food is really good.

Fairfax
being Safer than 41% of U.S. Cities is not a good thing 41 out of a 100 and 100 being the safest

Fairfax, VA Crime Rates and Statistics - NeighborhoodScout

Most accurate 2021 crime rates for Fairfax, VA. Your chance of being a victim of violent crime in Fairfax is 1 in 798 and property crime is 1 in 31. Compare Fairfax crime data to other cities, states, and neighborhoods in the U.S. on NeighborhoodScout.

www.neighborhoodscout.com

 

[JoeB131]

No, I am pissed that ignorant *****, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.

YOU, are fucked in the head.

Hey, fuckhead, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Bad people do bad things, but bad people without guns a less capable of doing bad things. That's the point. The rest of the ******* world has figured this out.

You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.

You just want an all-powerful government wielding guns against people you don't like.

And that's why you oppose civilian ownership of firearms. You want people helpless against your government.

Uh, no, guy. I don't live in a delusion that owning a gun protects me from an "evil" government. The government has tanks, drones, bombers, missiles, nukes, warships, etc. There's just not a whole lot I'm going to do with a gun if the government breaks bad.

If the government comes after you, a gun isn't going to make that much of a difference, and most of your neighbors will be cheering for the government, not you.

Sorry...did. not. happen........ joe and lystrata state that there is no crime in the U.S. since no one they know has ever been a victim of crime......those stories of rape, robbery and murder you see on the news are simply fake news......

When did I say that. My position is the reason we have so much ******* crime is because idiots like you make it way too easy for the bad guys to get guns... that's the point.

 

[freyasman]

No, I am pissed that ignorant *****, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.

YOU, are fucked in the head.

Hey, fuckhead, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Bad people do bad things, but bad people without guns a less capable of doing bad things. That's the point. The rest of the ******* world has figured this out.

View attachment 469991

You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.

You just want an all-powerful government wielding guns against people you don't like.

And that's why you oppose civilian ownership of firearms. You want people helpless against your government.

Uh, no, guy. I don't live in a delusion that owning a gun protects me from an "evil" government. The government has tanks, drones, bombers, missiles, nukes, warships, etc. There's just not a whole lot I'm going to do with a gun if the government breaks bad.

If the government comes after you, a gun isn't going to make that much of a difference, and most of your neighbors will be cheering for the government, not you.

Sorry...did. not. happen........ joe and lystrata state that there is no crime in the U.S. since no one they know has ever been a victim of crime......those stories of rape, robbery and murder you see on the news are simply fake news......

When did I say that. My position is the reason we have so much ******* crime is because idiots like you make it way too easy for the bad guys to get guns... that's the point.

False.

 

[2aguy]

No, I am pissed that ignorant *****, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.

YOU, are fucked in the head.

Hey, fuckhead, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Bad people do bad things, but bad people without guns a less capable of doing bad things. That's the point. The rest of the ******* world has figured this out.

View attachment 469991

You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.

You just want an all-powerful government wielding guns against people you don't like.

And that's why you oppose civilian ownership of firearms. You want people helpless against your government.

Uh, no, guy. I don't live in a delusion that owning a gun protects me from an "evil" government. The government has tanks, drones, bombers, missiles, nukes, warships, etc. There's just not a whole lot I'm going to do with a gun if the government breaks bad.

If the government comes after you, a gun isn't going to make that much of a difference, and most of your neighbors will be cheering for the government, not you.

Sorry...did. not. happen........ joe and lystrata state that there is no crime in the U.S. since no one they know has ever been a victim of crime......those stories of rape, robbery and murder you see on the news are simply fake news......

When did I say that. My position is the reason we have so much ******* crime is because idiots like you make it way too easy for the bad guys to get guns... that's the point.

Again with the 43 lie......

You know that Kellerman, who came up with that number lied.......

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[Vrenn]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

 

[Vrenn]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

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.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

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.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

 

[freyasman]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

So what?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.

I see you haven't yet come to terms with your inability to dictate what people need and what they don't.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the Second Amendment right.

There is no ‘need’ to possess an AR 15, there is no ‘need’ to ‘justify’ possessing one; that there is a right to possess one is alone sufficient.

This is where conservatives get it wrong: they sound extreme, desperate, and ridiculous trying to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15.

The possession of certain types of firearms isn’t jeopardized by ‘liberals’ or ‘gun-grabbers,’ it’s jeopardized by ham-fisted rightwing dullards who lack the rhetorical acumen to respond intelligently when asked why one ‘needs’ an AR 15.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.

lol

No it won’t.

This post is an example of the willfully ignorant rightwing dullard.

Again, the issue the court addressed had nothing to do with the constitutionality of AWBs; indeed, the Second Amendment isn’t even noted in the ruling.

The issue concerned solely Colorado law that preempts local jurisdictions enacting firearm regulatory measures – nothing else.

 

[Lysistrata]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

It's really not so much about need as it is want. In a free country, you should be able to buy yourself toys even if you have no "need" for them.

More importantly, Democrats have used increments to get their way to their ultimate goal. I remember when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. Look at them today. I remember when they only wanted to outlaw cigarettes in movie theaters. Today you can't smoke outside in some commie cities unless it's pot. I remember when all they wanted was to take lead out of gasoline. Today we have 30 different blends of gasoline.

It's like the great late Rush Limbaugh said so many times: I know liberals like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body.

That being said, there is nobody that will convince me they are going to stop at AR's, AKs, anything. Because liberals have a history of using increments. We all know they won't be happy, or quit pushing until it's nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to be armed. If you look at their bills, they are trying to do it right now.

You sound dangerous; very paranoid. Gays and smoking and something about communism. Wow. We simply have two major political parties in this country, and you claim that one of them is restricting your rights, but both parties do that. Who are you going to shoot at? Who is harming you? Who are you afraid of? You are not rational.

BTW: as a white heterosexual woman raised Christian in the Jersey suburbs who has lived and gone to school in Washington, D.C., I have to say that the worst shit I've ever gotten has been from white men and was based on gender. I don't carry a gun and I never shot anyone. I've known many LGBTQs. They never did a damned thing to me. Many helped me when I needed it. Friends. And folks of African descent. Same-same. Good neighbors who help.

I went to law school at night after work in DC, so I rode the rails. My significant other gave me a derringer. It never got out of its box because I don't do that stuff.

You need any more cats by chance? My mom's just had a litter a couple weeks ago.

You sound like a lady with a lot of them........ and not much else.

This has nothing to do with cats. You apparently are incapable of dealing with a serious issue. Your misogyny and racism are noted. Grow up before you type.
Just whom do you want to shoot at? BTW: what is your race, sex, ethnicity, and religion? Do you have a putin's poodle beard? Are you yelling at somebody from Thailand?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

View attachment 469466

Why don't you care?
Shouldn't every American have equal rights as pre the 14th amendment?

At least conservatives are consistent at being willfully ignorant and wrong.

This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment; this isn’t a civil rights issue.

This post does illustrate the hypocrisy of conservatives, who have no problem violating the 14th Amendment when it comes to the right to privacy or the rights of gay and transgender Americans.

 

[Flash]

That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.

I see you haven't yet come to terms with your inability to dictate what people need and what they don't.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the Second Amendment right.

There is no ‘need’ to possess an AR 15, there is no ‘need’ to ‘justify’ possessing one; that there is a right to possess one is alone sufficient.

This is where conservatives get it wrong: they sound extreme, desperate, and ridiculous trying to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15.

The possession of certain types of firearms isn’t jeopardized by ‘liberals’ or ‘gun-grabbers,’ it’s jeopardized by ham-fisted rightwing dullards who lack the rhetorical acumen to respond intelligently when asked why one ‘needs’ an AR 15.

You Moon Bats don't understand the Constitution very well, do you? You are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics.

You don't have to have a "need" for individual rights. I have the right for free speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms because I am a citizen protected by the Constitution. I don't have to establish a need for any of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is the one that specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

If somebody else with an agenda to screw Americans out of that right for whatever nefarious reason by determining if I have a need is sure as hell infringing upon that Constitutional right.

Stop trying to advocate taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans. It ain't cool.

By the way, just to play your silly game my needs for my AR-15s are:

1. Recreation, both shooting and collecting

2. Self defense

3. To serve as warning to the government that there will be a price to pay for oppression, just like the Founding Fathers wanted.