][% NC Sheepdog
- Jun 12, 2010
- Reaction score
- Kannapolis, N.C.
Heller got the in common use from MillerLiar heller did so with the statement weapons in common use.Wrong.there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.i
it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 peopleWhy not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.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.If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?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.You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.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.4. Firepower superiority.
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.
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.
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
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?
The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.
If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.
People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!
I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.
Can you give an answer?
The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.
The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.