Many hunters use AR15s...

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today."

How Antonin Scalia helped shape today's gun control reform debate

Scalia also made it perfectly clear that he was referring to dangerous and unusual weapons. But, he said handguns (like AR15s) are in common use. Heller pretty much *****-slapped all these bullshit gun-grabbing arguments.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You don't need an AR-15 to protect your home, and the right to bear arms doesn't say an AR-15 is covered.

This is a stupid-as-**** argument. I will decide what I need. Seeing as how you know COCKSUCKING SHIT about guns, I will trust my own judgment and laugh at yours.

Besides, it's not a Bill of Needs. It's a Bill of Rights.

 

[Rambunctious]

I'm not a Lib but I'd carry bear repellent spray before I'd carry a gun just to kill the bears. No one here is saying you have to go hunting with a revolver either... that's a pretty piss poor attempt at a strawman

Well I would never hunt Bear either but I do spend a lot of time in Bear country and If I had to choose between a hand gun or shotgun or an AR15 to defend myself from an angry Bear I will choose the long gun...
And before you say no one is saying you have to hunt with a revolver you had better look at the language being used...like a ban on semi automatic rifles and guns...
I believe it was Obama's vice President Old man Biden that said the sound of a pump shotgun being loaded is all you need for home protection...
The proverbial camels nose...

 

[hunarcy]

I keep hearing this talking point...AR15s aren't good for hunting. This talking point is patently false. It is advanced by people who know nothing about guns or hunting. AR15s are accurate, in a hunting caliber, easy to work on, and simple to customize. They will eventually supplant the bolt action rifle in the same way the bolt action rifle supplanted the lever action rifle and the lever action rifle supplanted the single shot.

Link to list of Youtube AR-15 Hunting Videos

I think there are situations where an AR-15 is a great rifle for hunting, but for larger game, I like a 30.06 or better for the knock down power. I think that those who believe AR-15s aren't good for hunting have that point of view.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I keep hearing this talking point...AR15s aren't good for hunting. This talking point is patently false. It is advanced by people who know nothing about guns or hunting. AR15s are accurate, in a hunting caliber, easy to work on, and simple to customize. They will eventually supplant the bolt action rifle in the same way the bolt action rifle supplanted the lever action rifle and the lever action rifle supplanted the single shot.

Link to list of Youtube AR-15 Hunting Videos

No they don't.

That is a lie.

No legitimate skilled hunter uses an AR-15. It would be seen as lame and a waste of ammo. 1 shot, 1 kill. You can't hit a moving target? FO.

And killing wild pigs and jackrabbits in mass is NOT HUNTING.

Real hunting is mostly dead, as "hunters" today use all types of technology and chemicals to track and fool the animal. It used to require skill and cunning, but today's hunters are frustrated impotent men. Few can even skin or care to eat what they kill. They'd rather pay someone to do the unpleasant part.

And don't get me started with the rich dentists and Don jr. types who pay big bucks to pretend they are Hemingway for a weekend. How pathetic is that?

A Marlin gov't. 1895 lever action 45-70 holds four cartridges. It packs a wallop and definitely can bring down a deer, or bear for that matter.
As for the AR-15 style rifles, the 2nd Amendment was specifically created for the purpose of civilian-defense against a tyrannical government, whether that government comes from abroad or is home-grown. Thus, those that created the document expected the civilians to possess firearms consistent with those that they would be opposing (the era was irrelevant).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's even recently been reviewed and courts still say AR-15's are not covered by the Second Amendment.

Link?

 

[Missourian]

My bolt action shotgun takes a detachable magazine as well, up to 10 rounds of 12 gauge. Marlin Model 55.

Talk about a mass-shooting meat grinder. Don't tell the loons or terrorists about that thing. Mass shootings will be much more deadly.

Hell, it's an antique, pre-68...and the barrel is a mile long. It's the Marlin Goose Guns younger brother. The 10 round magazine is rarer than hens teeth. Now the Saiga 12 on the other hand...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The weapon of choice for poor marksmen. They can get off more rounds against a defenseless animal. Real sportsmen.

Some people suck at shooting. That's a terrible argument AGAINST the AR15, unless your aim was to shame us into not using ARs. That won't work either.

 

[Rustic]

This one is only about SELF-DEFENSE. He understood that if you make guns illegal, only the law abiding will be disarmed. Libs totally lack wisdom or sense

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson

I'm wondering if you can site a single instance in which an AR-15 has been used in self defense by a civilian.....?

Texas church shooting, just off the top of my head.

Texas Hero: I Couldn't Have Stopped Mass Shooter Without My AR-15

I think calling it "self defense" is kind of a stretch, since the gunman was fleeing at the the time, and the man who shot him had to commandeer a truck to chase him down. He could have just as well stayed where he was, and still had not suffered any injuries.

I'm now sure your logic here is sound. Letting an armed assailant who has just shot up a church run loose is a recipe for disaster. There is little doubt this guy saved lives.

Granted, but there has never been a case to my knowledge that an AR-15 has been used in self defense by a civilian. I have no problem with the police using them to save lives, either. But, to imply that I need an AR-15 for self defense is totally delusional.

Lol
But you have no right to tell anyone else what they should use for defence you spineless ************.

 

[Lewdog]

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Still an overt "ACTION" not the mere 'existence of'...

The speech has to exist... you don't get thrown in jail for thoughts you don't share.

Exactly... you have to take the action of (verb) speaking / shouting.... an overt action... tantamount to taking the, (verb) overt action, of shooting irresponsibly...

Speech is not just a verb, and you can speak without breaking the law. It can be EITHER what you say (Noun) or where/when you say something that makes it illegal.

It is not just the circumstance. If you want to play that game, owning is a verb, therefore owning certain guns is not covered under the Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm wondering if you can site a single instance in which an AR-15 has been used in self defense by a civilian.....?

Texas Church Shooting. Next.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Personally think the key is in making sure magazines can't hold more than 10 shots. tighten up background checks, keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them and raise the age of purchase to 21.

On all other points I agree, but mag capacity has been debunked.

 

[KeiserC]

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Still an overt "ACTION" not the mere 'existence of'...

The speech has to exist... you don't get thrown in jail for thoughts you don't share.

Exactly... you have to take the action of (verb) speaking / shouting.... an overt action... tantamount to taking the, (verb) overt action, of shooting irresponsibly...

Speech is not just a verb, and you can speak without breaking the law. It can be EITHER what you say (Noun) or where/when you say something that makes it illegal.

It is not just the circumstance. If you want to play that game, owning is a verb, therefore owning certain guns is not covered under the Second Amendment.

'Owning' is not a verb! it's a passive affair...lol The only way it's a verb is if you use it in slang, connotatively, saying something like " I'm gonna own your ass on this next play" etc... denotatively speaking it doesn't fly...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Speech is not just a verb, and you can speak without breaking the law. It can be EITHER what you say (Noun) or where/when you say something that makes it illegal.

That is not the correct interpretation of non-protected speech. Calls to action or threats of violence relate to action. Owning a gun is completely benign. If just owning the weapon is requisite action worthy of constitutional infringement, the whole world should have been destroyed 10X over from all the nukes we have in the arsenal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How ironic. Owning an AR 15 is not predicated in any way on the protections of the 2nd Amendment. Which doesn't give anyone the right to own one. That has now been confirmed by the Supreme court twice in the last 10 years.

******* LINK???

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So continue to hunt with yours we just might not continue to manufacture them

Good thing WE know how to manufacture them.

 

[Moonglow]

And?

I used to know a kid who always said "and" after just about everything someone said to him. Later heard he killed his mom and dad and older brother in some satanic ritual.

And?

 

[Baz Ares]

Guess this is a church rally to take out another church? Insane people Cling to their Bible and Gun.

 

[Moonglow]

Guess this is a church rally to take out another church? Insane people Cling to their Bible and Guns.

Those motherfuckers are gonna take the collection plates of their competition churches..

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is that a threat?

Of course not snowflake....I'll just wait for the spring sun.