Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

[TheDefiantOne]

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols

Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years. What the judge did was just green light more of the same:

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet

Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.

If you’re worried about violence, ask Democrats why they’ve released tens of thousands of violent felons from prison early.

Check yourself before pointing the finger:

About 3,100 federal inmates to be released early under new U.S. law

Roughly 3,100 U.S. inmates, including many convicted of drug offenses, will be released early from federal prisons for good behavior under a criminal justice reform law signed last year by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

PolitiFact - Did Va. Democrats OK an early release plan for many violent inmates?

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, says Democrats in the General Assembly have opened prison gates for the early release of

www.politifact.com

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.

There, you just said it yourself: AR/AK weapons are "highly effective". Why would you deny the citizenry to the most effective self-defense firearm available?

For the very same reasons I would deny some yahoo mounting a .50 caliber machine gun on the roof of their house or own a flame thrower or grenades: 1) you can't legislate against crazy very well....so keeping full auto or assault weapons and military ordinance out of circulation in the general public bodes well for all....or hasn't the last 20 years taught you anything?
2) If you can't protect yourself with a .45 caliber semi-auto handgun, or a .38 revolver, or your home with a shotgun (single, double barrell or pump action) or a hunting rifle, then you're just a lousy shot, because the average burglar or home invasion is NOT with an AK-47 or AR-15....and least not yet. See my other response to you on this...hope you read the links thoroughly.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols

Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years. What the judge did was just green light more of the same:

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet

Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.

If you’re worried about violence, ask Democrats why they’ve released tens of thousands of violent felons from prison early.

Check yourself before pointing the finger:

About 3,100 federal inmates to be released early under new U.S. law

Roughly 3,100 U.S. inmates, including many convicted of drug offenses, will be released early from federal prisons for good behavior under a criminal justice reform law signed last year by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

PolitiFact - Did Va. Democrats OK an early release plan for many violent inmates?

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, says Democrats in the General Assembly have opened prison gates for the early release of

www.politifact.com

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.

There, you just said it yourself: AR/AK weapons are "highly effective". Why would you deny the citizenry to the most effective self-defense firearm available?

For the very same reasons I would deny some yahoo mounting a .50 caliber machine gun on the roof of their house or own a flame thrower or grenades: 1) you can't legislate against crazy very well....so keeping full auto or assault weapons and military ordinance out of circulation in the general public bodes well for all....or hasn't the last 20 years taught you anything?
2) If you can't protect yourself with a .45 caliber semi-auto handgun, or a .38 revolver, or your home with a shotgun (single, double barrell or pump action) or a hunting rifle, then you're just a lousy shot, because the average burglar or home invasion is NOT with an AK-47 or AR-15....and least not yet. See my other response to you on this...hope you read the links thoroughly.

1. No one is talking about 50 cal MG's, or flamethowers, or grenades. That argument will always be bullshit, so you oughta put it to bed.

2. You just said that an AR/AK rifle is the most efficient, more efficient than revolver, semi-auto pistol and certainly more efficient than a single shot. What if a burglar shows up at my crib with an AR/AK? I should be able to at least be prepared to have paridy of fires.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by mujahideen during Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Mujis were equipped with heavy machine guns, automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, anti-armor weapons and SAM's...lol. Not sure what point you're trying to make, there.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by mujahideen during Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

AR-15 can be modified to fire automatic but that takes a special federal license tax and background check with a life long review by ATF.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You are correct. Alls it requires is a class 7 FFL.

 

[Rigby5]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

AR-15 can be modified to fire automatic but that takes a special federal license tax and background check with a life long review by ATF.

Its also very difficult to make an AR-15 full auto.
It takes a lot of additional machine shop work, as well as additional hard to get and regulated pieces.

 

[Rigby5]

You are correct. Alls it requires is a class 7 FFL.

And a lot of skilled machine shop work and parts that are not easy to get.

That is how David Koresh got into trouble in Waco.
He built a machine shop with half a dozen skilled machinists, spending months trying to convert an AR-15 into a full auto M-4.
And it was when he finally succeeded that they raided him.

I did not quickly find a Koresh article, but this is about conversion in general.

Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16

Read: Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16 from Mike Searson on June 5, 2019 for Recoil.

www.recoilweb.com

 

[Flash]

You are correct. Alls it requires is a class 7 FFL.

And a lot of skilled machine shop work and parts that are not easy to get.

That is how David Koresh got into trouble in Waco.
He built a machine shop with half a dozen skilled machinists, spending months trying to convert an AR-15 into a full auto M-4.
And it was when he finally succeeded that they raided him.

I did not quickly find a Koresh article, but this is about conversion in general.

Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16

Read: Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16 from Mike Searson on June 5, 2019 for Recoil.

www.recoilweb.com

The government has yet to produce one illegal firearm that they claimed Koresh had.

When the filthy government thugs attacked the people and the Patriots returned fire it was all semi auto fire.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of us don't.

You rail like a petulant child. Here's something for the adult part of you to ponder: How many weapons were banned in 1994? How many weapons weren't banned in 1994? Are you telling the reading audience that you couldn't defend yourself or shoot targets or fulfill your mental security of a free state with the plethora of weapons NOT on the list?

But you missed some very important points.
First of all, the 1994 so called Assault Weapons ban did not ban anything really.
It made nothing already purchased, illegal.
And it did nothing to the future sales of ARs.
They just had to take off the bayonet lug and flash suppressor.
Which the buyer could put back on if he wanted to.

The future proposed Assault Weapons bans are entirely different, in that they would illegally try to confiscate currently legally owned ARs, in violation of the Ex Post Facto laws.
And with about 20 million of them out there, that would be bound to start a shooting war on US streets.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

True past laws have not been applied retroactively, because that would be illegal, ex post facto.
However, all the current proposals for an assault weapons ban would be retroaction and talks about confiscation.
Hillary clearly proposed the mandatory buy back of Australia as her model.


Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.

 

[Flash]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

True past laws have not been applied retroactively, because that would be illegal, ex post facto.
However, all the current proposals for an assault weapons ban would be retroaction and talks about confiscation.
Hillary clearly proposed the mandatory buy back of Australia as her model.


Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.

Yea, exactly what you filthy ass Libtards want

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

AR-15 can be modified to fire automatic but that takes a special federal license tax and background check with a life long review by ATF.

Its also very difficult to make an AR-15 full auto.
It takes a lot of additional machine shop work, as well as additional hard to get and regulated pieces.

It isn't "very difficult" and the required parts aren't regulated. Those two facts blow the anti-gunner argument completely out of the water.

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

AR-15 can be modified to fire automatic but that takes a special federal license tax and background check with a life long review by ATF.

Its also very difficult to make an AR-15 full auto.
It takes a lot of additional machine shop work, as well as additional hard to get and regulated pieces.

It isn't "very difficult" anf the parts aren't regulated.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by mujahideen during Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by mujahideen during Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Mujis were equipped with heavy machine guns, automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, anti-armor weapons and SAM's...lol. Not sure what point you're trying to make, there.

Maybe you should quit the false hysterics and pay attention to what you read.....the majority of the heavy weapons were confiscated from the Russians, and that was done by people using dated weapons, IED's and just plain guts...and since you are obviously unaware of the history of the conflict, you should do a little research as to when the SAM's (finally) came into the picture (or you could rent the DVD "Charlie Wilson's War" as a short cut).

Assuming you're intellectually honest and do the suggested task, you may want to just concede the previous points as well, given that you have NO rebuttal other than an erroneous dodge. Carry on.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

This is true, as they are the civilian version of what was planned for the military.
But
They were and are categorized as an "assault weapon" by military and law enforcement. (Cops have the version that can switch from semi to full auto). The early advertisement sold it as a highly efficient & adaptable weapon capable of rapid fire with great accuracy and serious impact ammo...and that's EXACTLY what the mass shooters who purchased them wanted. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

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.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

AR-15 can be modified to fire automatic but that takes a special federal license tax and background check with a life long review by ATF.

Its also very difficult to make an AR-15 full auto.
It takes a lot of additional machine shop work, as well as additional hard to get and regulated pieces.

Umm, not quite