If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[Skull Pilot]

Remember in November....any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the reasons to vote for Trump....... and Ginsburg and Breyer are two reasons to vote for Republican Senators in November....

Voting either Rep or Dem will have no change to the 2nd amendment. Not one iota. You are still trying to use fear. Well fear this, the more you lie like this and try to instill fear the more common sense people will rebel against your ideals since they are based strictly on fear and hate.

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

Don't tell me what I take as a victory or what "bunch" I am in because you don't have a fucking clue as to what I think

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Voting either Rep or Dem will have no change to the 2nd amendment. Not one iota. You are still trying to use fear. Well fear this, the more you lie like this and try to instill fear the more common sense people will rebel against your ideals since they are based strictly on fear and hate.

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

Don't tell me what I take as a victory or what "bunch" I am in because you don't have a fucking clue as to what I think

Aren't you tired yet of having your butt handed to your yet? Sort of like playing whackamole where I can't miss.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

Don't tell me what I take as a victory or what "bunch" I am in because you don't have a fucking clue as to what I think

Aren't you tired yet of having your butt handed to your yet? This reminds me of a whackamole where I can't miss.

You couldn't hand anyone's butt to anyone without a forklift feeble old man that you are

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

Hey moron I have already told you I don't own an AR 15.

The Alzheimer's must be getting worse huh?

And if you know people who have illegal fully automatic rifles why don't you drop a dime on them?

And States are not allowed to violate the rights pf the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution or didn't you know that?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

Hey moron I have already told you I don't own an AR 15.

The Alzheimer's must be getting worse huh?

And if you know people who have illegal fully automatic rifles why don't you drop a dime on them?

And States are not allowed to violate the rights pf the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution or didn't you know that?

Then you don't have any skin in the game, right?

Are you age bigoting once again? Bet you wouldn't want me to buy a cake either. BTW, the Cake Store went Bankrupt. Looks like there were a lot of straight people that found his action rather unsavory.

And all the Constitution affords is for you to own "Normal" firearms. Glad you keep bringing up Heller since the Court ruled what a "Normal" handgun is and where it can be legally held. And the State or District can still require you to have to have a permit to own it if it wishes according the Heller to have it in your home. The State can ban all weapons outside the home or license weapons or even ban a specific weapon. And this is within the confines of the Constitution of the United States under the 2nd and 14th Amendment. The only place the State cannot ban "Normal" weapons for home defense is in the home. And the Courts have ruled that the AR-15 is outside the definition of Normal Home Defense. And, yes, if the State decided to specifically ban the AR-15 and it's many copies, it has been upheld in Federal Court that it can do it, much to the chagrin and expense of the NRA. I have already posted that decision. You just ignore it. So stop making things up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

Don't tell me what I take as a victory or what "bunch" I am in because you don't have a fucking clue as to what I think

Aren't you tired yet of having your butt handed to your yet? This reminds me of a whackamole where I can't miss.

You couldn't hand anyone's butt to anyone without a forklift feeble old man that you are

I don't have to hand you your butt. You keep handing it to yourself. So stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

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

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

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

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

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No... they didn't hear the case, they didn't take it..... that is the point. You don't know what you are talking about..... It takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case...4 justices did not vote to hear the case...because neither side could trust Kennedy...

That has now changed.

The federal courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano, Friedman, you don't know what you are talking about... the AR-15 is the exact same rifle as all other semi auto rifles you doofus....

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

----

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.
Despite sales of AR-15s growing astronomically in recent years, homicides committed with rifles of all kinds are exceedingly rare and continue to plummet. Just 367 murders of 8,874 murders committed in 2010 were committed with any kind of rifle, and murders committed with AR-15s was too rare to bother tracking individually. Rifle homicides dropped to 298 in 2012, and to just 248 in 2014.

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

A rental Truck used by a muslim in France killed more people than every mass shooter did using an AR-15...... and at Virginia tech, a guy with 2 pistols killed 32 people..... you have no clue what you are talking about.

We had our van or truck bombing in Oklahoma City. We have since changed things where the chemicals needed to make such a bomb are very difficult to get. Oh, you can get them but red flags will be popping up high and fast while you are trying to get it. What happens in France isn't the United States. I do hope we are smarter and better prepared than that.

As for Virginia Tech, it was the first of many. No one even conceived that something like that could ever happen. No one was prepared either physically, logistically or mentally. The shooter had an open ticket. Right after that, changes were made making it much harder to move from building to build like that without raising red flags after the first shots were fired. Today, you get only a few chances before you are stopped cold. Today, they go for congested crowds where the body counts can be the highest. Going from building to building just isn't done.

Now, stop making shit up.

You don't know what you are talking about..... Luby's Cafe the guy used 2 pistols and killed 24, in 1991....... And Columbine...

You should really stop posting until you can post with intelligence....

 

[2aguy]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Yea they just won't ever say it or tell anyone. Should be a successful march huh? Esp if the majority don't want it.

The majority wants stricter gun regulations. Not gun banning but regulations. But that is done at the State and local level, not at the Federal Level as per the Constitution of the United States.

The majority can't tell you who the Vice President is, you doofus.... they have no understanding of current gun laws and how they aren't used to stop criminals let alone how ineffective all of your new gun laws will be just as ineffective.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

Wrong.... that is not what Heller said..... and the Supreme Court has specifically protected the AR-15 rifle and all other Bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes..... those towns and state governments are breaking the law....

They don't have to change the law, the Supreme Court needs one more real Justice appointed to the court....oh,yeah, and that just happened.....

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.

And from Heller...

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.

You left out the real meat of the ruling.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that
a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing
requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Much like you keep leaving out the 14th amendment out of the Constitution of the United States when you keep screaming, "It's Unconstitutional". You only want to use that short part sentense that you believe agrees with you. Instead, you are just making shit up. Stop it.

No...twit.... you left out the actual relevant part...

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.
----

And from the immediate follow up ruling that slapped down the 4th circuit when they tried to ban stun guns...

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]

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

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

-----

----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.


--

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


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


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

 

[2aguy]

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

Hey moron I have already told you I don't own an AR 15.

The Alzheimer's must be getting worse huh?

And if you know people who have illegal fully automatic rifles why don't you drop a dime on them?

And States are not allowed to violate the rights pf the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution or didn't you know that?

Then you don't have any skin in the game, right?

Are you age bigoting once again? Bet you wouldn't want me to buy a cake either. BTW, the Cake Store went Bankrupt. Looks like there were a lot of straight people that found his action rather unsavory.

And all the Constitution affords is for you to own "Normal" firearms. Glad you keep bringing up Heller since the Court ruled what a "Normal" handgun is and where it can be legally held. And the State or District can still require you to have to have a permit to own it if it wishes according the Heller to have it in your home. The State can ban all weapons outside the home or license weapons or even ban a specific weapon. And this is within the confines of the Constitution of the United States under the 2nd and 14th Amendment. The only place the State cannot ban "Normal" weapons for home defense is in the home. And the Courts have ruled that the AR-15 is outside the definition of Normal Home Defense. And, yes, if the State decided to specifically ban the AR-15 and it's many copies, it has been upheld in Federal Court that it can do it, much to the chagrin and expense of the NRA. I have already posted that decision. You just ignore it. So stop making things up.

You just make stuff up and hope people won't actually read the Heller decision...where nothing you said is accurate....

Heller states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment you doofus...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

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

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

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

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

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No... they didn't hear the case, they didn't take it..... that is the point. You don't know what you are talking about..... It takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case...4 justices did not vote to hear the case...because neither side could trust Kennedy...

That has now changed.

The federal courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano, Friedman, you don't know what you are talking about... the AR-15 is the exact same rifle as all other semi auto rifles you doofus....

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

----

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.
Despite sales of AR-15s growing astronomically in recent years, homicides committed with rifles of all kinds are exceedingly rare and continue to plummet. Just 367 murders of 8,874 murders committed in 2010 were committed with any kind of rifle, and murders committed with AR-15s was too rare to bother tracking individually. Rifle homicides dropped to 298 in 2012, and to just 248 in 2014.

Here is the ruling once again. Since you won't click on a friggin link, here is the text.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY Published 9:22 a.m. ET April 7, 2018 | Updated 10:47 a.m. ET April 7, 2018

A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.

Young was ruling for the state in upholding Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's decision in 2016 to broaden the definition of “copies or duplicates" of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are banned under a 1998 state law covering assault weapons.

Healey's decision, which was challenged by a gun-rights group, came in the wake of the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were killed by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle and semi-automatic pistol.

The issue has taken on a new sense of urgency following the Valentine's Day killing in Parkland, Fla., of 17 people by a gunman armed with an AR-15. Student survivors of the Florida shooting have mounted a campaign calling for a nationwide ban on the weapons.

In his ruling in Boston, Young quoted from the writings of the late Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a conservative and an "originalist," who believed the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning at the time it was written.

Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in a ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., Scalia had found that the Second Amendment "does not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as writing on behalf of the five-member majority.

The AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon and technically not an assault weapon, is similar to the M-16, an assault rifle first used on the battlefield in Vietnam.

Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that it was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling and argued that Young distorted Scalia's position.

The NRA said Scalia had joined a dissent in 2015 that said the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes "is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Young had rejected arguments by the Massachusetts plaintiffs, including the Gun Owners’ Action League Inc., who had challenged the state ban in part by declaring the AR-15 to be extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young wrote.

In his conclusion, Young declared that the fate of the AR-15 and similar weapons is not of "constitutional moment" but one that should be left for each individual state and its people to decide politically.

"Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy," Young wrote. "Justice Scalia would be proud."

If you wish to read the court ruling papers you can go to Plaintiffs vs. Healey and read it. The NRA played the Scalia card like you do and it didn't work for them either.

Now, stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

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

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

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

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

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No.... they didn't hear the case...... You keep making up things that are not in the rulings. This dissent was not on the ruling on the case, twit....that dissent was against the lack of 4 judges voting to hear the case....

You are wrong....... I gave you what Scalia said specifiacally about the AR-15, and he wrote the opinion in Heller.......he stated the AR-15 by name, twit.....

It was specifically labeled as being in common use for lawful purposes........ you don't know what you are talking about.

You mean the lack of 5 judges to hear it. They voted 5 to 4 not to hear the case. Stop making shit up.

Dumb ass...... The Chief Justice selects all the cases that the court will vote on to hear, that is his power in the court..... the other justices then take a vote on the cases.... and they need 4 justices to vote yes to hear the case....you doofus. When they don't get 4 votes, all it means is they didn't hear the case and the current lower court ruling stands.... until the Supreme Court decides the issue has had enough time to have hearings in different states..... then, when they think it is time, they will take a case to decide the issue... you doofus...

Not hearing a case has no bearing on the Constitutional actions of the lower court.....

Now with Kavanaugh, we just might end the stupidity of you and those other anti gunners in the lower courts.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

Hey moron I have already told you I don't own an AR 15.

The Alzheimer's must be getting worse huh?

And if you know people who have illegal fully automatic rifles why don't you drop a dime on them?

And States are not allowed to violate the rights pf the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution or didn't you know that?

Then you don't have any skin in the game, right?

Are you age bigoting once again? Bet you wouldn't want me to buy a cake either. BTW, the Cake Store went Bankrupt. Looks like there were a lot of straight people that found his action rather unsavory.

And all the Constitution affords is for you to own "Normal" firearms. Glad you keep bringing up Heller since the Court ruled what a "Normal" handgun is and where it can be legally held. And the State or District can still require you to have to have a permit to own it if it wishes according the Heller to have it in your home. The State can ban all weapons outside the home or license weapons or even ban a specific weapon. And this is within the confines of the Constitution of the United States under the 2nd and 14th Amendment. The only place the State cannot ban "Normal" weapons for home defense is in the home. And the Courts have ruled that the AR-15 is outside the definition of Normal Home Defense. And, yes, if the State decided to specifically ban the AR-15 and it's many copies, it has been upheld in Federal Court that it can do it, much to the chagrin and expense of the NRA. I have already posted that decision. You just ignore it. So stop making things up.

You just make stuff up and hope people won't actually read the Heller decision...where nothing you said is accurate....

Heller states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment you doofus...

It didn't say anything about all bearable arms. It only dealt with handguns in the homes. And the denying Heller the permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home. They ruled that he was to be issued that permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home for home defense. And that it did not have to be either disassemble nor have a safety trigger guard installed on it. I already posted the meat of the Heller case. You are just hoping others won't read it. Well, they have. You are the only one left that keeps chewing on this bone. Stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

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

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

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

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

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No... they didn't hear the case, they didn't take it..... that is the point. You don't know what you are talking about..... It takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case...4 justices did not vote to hear the case...because neither side could trust Kennedy...

That has now changed.

The federal courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano, Friedman, you don't know what you are talking about... the AR-15 is the exact same rifle as all other semi auto rifles you doofus....

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

----

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.
Despite sales of AR-15s growing astronomically in recent years, homicides committed with rifles of all kinds are exceedingly rare and continue to plummet. Just 367 murders of 8,874 murders committed in 2010 were committed with any kind of rifle, and murders committed with AR-15s was too rare to bother tracking individually. Rifle homicides dropped to 298 in 2012, and to just 248 in 2014.

Here is the ruling once again. Since you won't click on a friggin link, here is the text.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY Published 9:22 a.m. ET April 7, 2018 | Updated 10:47 a.m. ET April 7, 2018

A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.

Young was ruling for the state in upholding Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's decision in 2016 to broaden the definition of “copies or duplicates" of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are banned under a 1998 state law covering assault weapons.

Healey's decision, which was challenged by a gun-rights group, came in the wake of the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were killed by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle and semi-automatic pistol.

The issue has taken on a new sense of urgency following the Valentine's Day killing in Parkland, Fla., of 17 people by a gunman armed with an AR-15. Student survivors of the Florida shooting have mounted a campaign calling for a nationwide ban on the weapons.

In his ruling in Boston, Young quoted from the writings of the late Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a conservative and an "originalist," who believed the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning at the time it was written.

Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in a ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., Scalia had found that the Second Amendment "does not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as writing on behalf of the five-member majority.

The AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon and technically not an assault weapon, is similar to the M-16, an assault rifle first used on the battlefield in Vietnam.

Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that it was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling and argued that Young distorted Scalia's position.

The NRA said Scalia had joined a dissent in 2015 that said the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes "is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Young had rejected arguments by the Massachusetts plaintiffs, including the Gun Owners’ Action League Inc., who had challenged the state ban in part by declaring the AR-15 to be extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young wrote.

In his conclusion, Young declared that the fate of the AR-15 and similar weapons is not of "constitutional moment" but one that should be left for each individual state and its people to decide politically.

"Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy," Young wrote. "Justice Scalia would be proud."

If you wish to read the court ruling papers you can go to Plaintiffs vs. Healey and read it. The NRA played the Scalia card like you do and it didn't work for them either.

Now, stop making shit up.

Moron...... The lower court is ignoring the actual ruling in Heller, Caetano, Miller, and Friedman..... they are breaking the law by ignoring the Supreme Court.... you doofus....

The Heller decision and Scalia's dissent in Friedman where he specifically says that that judge is lying.....states the AR-15 rifle is a protected rifle.....

Left wing judges don't follow the law..... they didn't follow the law here.....

Young lied.....

"Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as writing on behalf of the five-member majority.

That isn't what Scalia said, he lied...he intentionally misread what Scalia actually wrote, you doofus......

This is Scalia telliing that judge he is an idiot...

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

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Yea they just won't ever say it or tell anyone. Should be a successful march huh? Esp if the majority don't want it.

The majority wants stricter gun regulations. Not gun banning but regulations. But that is done at the State and local level, not at the Federal Level as per the Constitution of the United States.

The majority can't tell you who the Vice President is, you doofus.... they have no understanding of current gun laws and how they aren't used to stop criminals let alone how ineffective all of your new gun laws will be just as ineffective.

The majority is the ones that elects (or are supposed to anyway) our representatives. Are you saying that only the NRA should have the say in who represents us? I know it feels that way sometimes but in the end, it always ends up going right back to the majority.

 

[2aguy]

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

Hey moron I have already told you I don't own an AR 15.

The Alzheimer's must be getting worse huh?

And if you know people who have illegal fully automatic rifles why don't you drop a dime on them?

And States are not allowed to violate the rights pf the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution or didn't you know that?

Then you don't have any skin in the game, right?

Are you age bigoting once again? Bet you wouldn't want me to buy a cake either. BTW, the Cake Store went Bankrupt. Looks like there were a lot of straight people that found his action rather unsavory.

And all the Constitution affords is for you to own "Normal" firearms. Glad you keep bringing up Heller since the Court ruled what a "Normal" handgun is and where it can be legally held. And the State or District can still require you to have to have a permit to own it if it wishes according the Heller to have it in your home. The State can ban all weapons outside the home or license weapons or even ban a specific weapon. And this is within the confines of the Constitution of the United States under the 2nd and 14th Amendment. The only place the State cannot ban "Normal" weapons for home defense is in the home. And the Courts have ruled that the AR-15 is outside the definition of Normal Home Defense. And, yes, if the State decided to specifically ban the AR-15 and it's many copies, it has been upheld in Federal Court that it can do it, much to the chagrin and expense of the NRA. I have already posted that decision. You just ignore it. So stop making things up.

You just make stuff up and hope people won't actually read the Heller decision...where nothing you said is accurate....

Heller states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment you doofus...

It didn't say anything about all bearable arms. It only dealt with handguns in the homes. And the denying Heller the permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home. They ruled that he was to be issued that permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home for home defense. And that it did not have to be either disassemble nor have a safety trigger guard installed on it. I already posted the meat of the Heller case. You are just hoping others won't read it. Well, they have. You are the only one left that keeps chewing on this bone. Stop making shit up.

Moron.... I quoted directly from Heller where it states all bearable arms are protected...

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.

 

[2aguy]

So would a Mini 14 or any other semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 or larger round
Shit a couple handguns could have done the same thing too

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

Hey moron I have already told you I don't own an AR 15.

The Alzheimer's must be getting worse huh?

And if you know people who have illegal fully automatic rifles why don't you drop a dime on them?

And States are not allowed to violate the rights pf the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution or didn't you know that?

Then you don't have any skin in the game, right?

Are you age bigoting once again? Bet you wouldn't want me to buy a cake either. BTW, the Cake Store went Bankrupt. Looks like there were a lot of straight people that found his action rather unsavory.

And all the Constitution affords is for you to own "Normal" firearms. Glad you keep bringing up Heller since the Court ruled what a "Normal" handgun is and where it can be legally held. And the State or District can still require you to have to have a permit to own it if it wishes according the Heller to have it in your home. The State can ban all weapons outside the home or license weapons or even ban a specific weapon. And this is within the confines of the Constitution of the United States under the 2nd and 14th Amendment. The only place the State cannot ban "Normal" weapons for home defense is in the home. And the Courts have ruled that the AR-15 is outside the definition of Normal Home Defense. And, yes, if the State decided to specifically ban the AR-15 and it's many copies, it has been upheld in Federal Court that it can do it, much to the chagrin and expense of the NRA. I have already posted that decision. You just ignore it. So stop making things up.

You just make stuff up and hope people won't actually read the Heller decision...where nothing you said is accurate....

Heller states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment you doofus...

It didn't say anything about all bearable arms. It only dealt with handguns in the homes. And the denying Heller the permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home. They ruled that he was to be issued that permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home for home defense. And that it did not have to be either disassemble nor have a safety trigger guard installed on it. I already posted the meat of the Heller case. You are just hoping others won't read it. Well, they have. You are the only one left that keeps chewing on this bone. Stop making shit up.

Listen shit stain...... you are a liar... on top of that, you don't understand what you are lying about....