So, anti gunners who say no one wants to take our guns...what about the 4th circuit gun ban?

[2aguy]

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" From hazlnut's link above

The term "weapons of war" needs to be considered in terms of the 2nd and what that means to America.

Moron....the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the possession of weapons of war.....not hunting pieces.....

So you admit you are failing here. The courts, not you, will make that decision. No, you don't get your definition of a "weapons of war." That's not how it works. You are on ignore for the remainder of the thread.

Yeah...we do....that is what elections are for asswipe...and in case you failed to notice...Trump won....and will appoint 2-3 justices......

Ignore? Really? You are getting the crap kicked out of you and you run like a child......too funny....

 

[2aguy]

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the ******* decision. Read ******* Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.

12-14 hours, maybe.

But I want you to state what YOUR 'opinion' is.

Dont' you have one?

I believe the second amendment is a collective right based on common defense, not an individual right based on self-defense.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

See, the founders even tell us why they adopted the second amendment. They were against a standing army. And without a standing army they needed a citizen's militia to defend the nation's borders as well as defend against, now get this, an INSURRECTION .

You see, when the second amendment was proposed this new nation had just defeated, not the world's primary military power, but a domestic insurrection, Shays' Rebellion. You might want to look it up. But the government response to that insurrection revealed a weak Articles of Confederation and necessitated the reforms incorporated in the Constitution. Truth is, had the governor of Massachusetts not illegally seized the FEDERAL ARMORY before the rebels, using those very weapons to arm a PRIVATE ARMY, this nation never would have made it in to the 19th century.

This whole attempt to tie the second amendment to the Revolution is nothing but historical revisionism that makes no sense. The second amendment was passed a full decade and a half AFTER the start of the Revolutionary War. General Washington had already retired to Mount Vernon and was more worried about raising donkeys than having any part of government. It was Shay's rebellion that spurred his return to political life.

Ironically, it was only a matter of years before that second amendment's purpose was vividly highlighted. The Whiskey Rebellion. Four states, just four states called up militias, and the total number of ARMED soldiers, many of them DRAFTED--was greater than Washington's Continental Army at ANYTIME during the American Revolution.

The Constitutional Convention was initiated by insurrection. The second amendment was directed toward defending against domestic insurrection, not enabling it. And the second amendment has never, ever, worked as a defense against insurrection while at the same time being used, not infrequently, to suppress insurrection.

That's all well and good, but...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

You seem to dismiss, for some reason, that the right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, NOT the militia.

Militia ONLY covered MALES between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

By YOUR reckoning, boys under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, had no self defense via firearms.

Women, none at all.

Did you not miss my first sentence, the one where I said that I believe the second amendment is collective right about common defense and not an individual right to self-defense? You have a common law right to self defense, you can pick up anything handy and use it. That doesn't mean you have a right to a gun anymore than a commoner had the right to a sword.

Yeah...except nothing in our legal history or that of the British system supports anything you just said....our legal history shows that self defense is an individual Right, not a collective one and in Heller they go through the history of this legal belief in great detail......

 

[Anathema]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

My right to Weapons of War comes from a power far higher than the COTUS.

 

[Winston]

Did you not miss my first sentence, the one where I said that I believe the second amendment is collective right about common defense and not an individual right to self-defense? You have a common law right to self defense, you can pick up anything handy and use it. That doesn't mean you have a right to a gun anymore than a commoner had the right to a sword.

How the hell is a collective going to defend you from harm? And we don't need your post modern revisionist thoughts on the subject, we can do better:


Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

Wow. Just wow. See, that is the problem with gun nuts. They find a website with a list of quotes and then copy and paste them with great fanfare, not knowing one wit about the context of the quote. I mean here you are, screaming about individual self-defense and asking what good is a collective right of common defense, and then your first quote, I mean the VERY FIRST ONE. Here, let me give you the TWO PRECEDING SENTENCES, and then the following one.

Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

It is like, seriously. Hell, right there it is for you. After Shay and before Whiskey. Damn, even from the Revolution, the patriots had trouble getting ARMS. Thank god for the French, and I ain't talking about their Navy. I am talking about her MUSKETS. Again, Shay's rebellion would have destroyed the federal government IF they had gotten to the armory before the Massachusetts governor and his PRIVATE ARMY. It was important that the people had access to arms, not to protect themselves individually, but to provide for the COMMON DEFENSE should it become necessary.

 

[Noteworthy_Cause]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

 

[Winston]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and calling it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

 

[Noteworthy_Cause]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

 

[Winston]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

 

[Noteworthy_Cause]

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

 

[Auld Phart]

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

He's sinking fast, and grasping for something to keep him afloat.

Those straws aren't going to keep his head above water tho.

 

[LuckyDuck]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Only individuals with a "Federal Firearms License" can actually own "military" weapons of war and the last I checked, our average American citizens don't possess such a license, what they do possess are weapons that have the "physical appearance" of military style weapons but lack the fully automatic capabilities. There's also the fact that there are 300 million firearms in the hands of approximately 80 million "legal and law abiding" owners who are no threat to the gun-grabbing far-left (proto-communist) liberals. However, should the gun-grabbing idiots get back into control of the federal government and make a serious attempt to confiscate our weapons, then you will see a civil war. If even 10% of that 80 million fight for the right to maintain their weapons rights, that is 8 million fighters determined to take back their civil right to bear arms and the last I checked, all military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution and elements of the military would break off and side with those fighting to retain their weapons rights. The US has been bogged down fighting illiterate elderly and young fighters armed only with AK-47's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive devices for 15 years and are no closer to winning than when they began and if you think thousands of illiterate elderly and young fighters are stubborn and deadly, think 8,000,000+ educated and stubborn fighters.

 

[Winston]

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

Then what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.

 

[Winston]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Only individuals with a "Federal Firearms License" can actually own "military" weapons of war and the last I checked, our average American citizens don't possess such a license, what they do possess are weapons that have the "physical appearance" of military style weapons but lack the fully automatic capabilities. There's also the fact that there are 300 million firearms in the hands of approximately 80 million "legal and law abiding" owners who are no threat to the gun-grabbing far-left (proto-communist) liberals. However, should the gun-grabbing idiots get back into control of the federal government and make a serious attempt to confiscate our weapons, then you will see a civil war. If even 10% of that 80 million fight for the right to maintain their weapons rights, that is 8 million fighters determined to take back their civil right to bear arms and the last I checked, all military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution and elements of the military would break off and side with those fighting to retain their weapons rights. The US has been bogged down fighting illiterate elderly and young fighters armed only with AK-47's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive devices for 15 years and are no closer to winning than when they began and if you think thousands of illiterate elderly and young fighters are stubborn and deadly, think 8,000,000+ educated and stubborn fighters.

What a damn fantasy. Yep, eight million gun-owning rednecks are going to "save" the Republic. Of course, the first thing you need to happen is for part of the military to break off and join the cause. Hopefully it will be the Air Force, right? I mean come on, a bunch of numbnuts toting AR-15's chambered in the .223? Hell even twelve year olds with AK-47's would be more destructive, and probably more disciplined too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Assault weapons and facsimiles, are for the common offense, not defense of self and property.

any rifle can be used for defense

and FYI military assault weapons are not available to the public

 

[Skull Pilot]

Question. How is an AR-15 any more "useful" in war than a regular old .223 rifle?

Oh , it's not.

That's why they don't use them.

Let me repeat that.

NO MILITARY uses an AR-15 in war.

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

Then what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.

how about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?

I'll do this again

this rifle

for all intents and purposes is EXACTLY the same as this one

yet I can't own the latter but I can own the former

how ******* stupid is that?

 

[LuckyDuck]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Only individuals with a "Federal Firearms License" can actually own "military" weapons of war and the last I checked, our average American citizens don't possess such a license, what they do possess are weapons that have the "physical appearance" of military style weapons but lack the fully automatic capabilities. There's also the fact that there are 300 million firearms in the hands of approximately 80 million "legal and law abiding" owners who are no threat to the gun-grabbing far-left (proto-communist) liberals. However, should the gun-grabbing idiots get back into control of the federal government and make a serious attempt to confiscate our weapons, then you will see a civil war. If even 10% of that 80 million fight for the right to maintain their weapons rights, that is 8 million fighters determined to take back their civil right to bear arms and the last I checked, all military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution and elements of the military would break off and side with those fighting to retain their weapons rights. The US has been bogged down fighting illiterate elderly and young fighters armed only with AK-47's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive devices for 15 years and are no closer to winning than when they began and if you think thousands of illiterate elderly and young fighters are stubborn and deadly, think 8,000,000+ educated and stubborn fighters.

What a damn fantasy. Yep, eight million gun-owning rednecks are going to "save" the Republic. Of course, the first thing you need to happen is for part of the military to break off and join the cause. Hopefully it will be the Air Force, right? I mean come on, a bunch of numbnuts toting AR-15's chambered in the .223? Hell even twelve year olds with AK-47's would be more destructive, and probably more disciplined too.

Yeah...and the ever so-great US military has been so VERY successful in Afghanistan against "farmers."

 

[LuckyDuck]

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

Then what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.

how about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?

I'll do this again

this rifle

for all intents and purposes is EXACTLY the same as this one

yet I can't own the latter but I can own the former

how ******* stupid is that?

Yeah. The first photo is of the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. I own the "tactical" version of it. It's a nice rifle I use at the range with which I use the 5.56x45 American Eagle Ammunition. I also have the Ohio Ordnance BAR which uses 30-06 ammunition. Both very enjoyable on the range.

 

[Winston]

Who ******* cares? Hell, thanks for admitting the AR-15 is pretty damn worthless as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON. It's like putting a telescopic sight on a slingshot and call it a sniper rifle.

In case you didn't understand, the standard is--does the inability to own an AR-15 significantly hamper one's ability to protect themselves? Can you make that argument, that without an AR-15, you would not have a "constitutional right to self-defense"? Nobody has successfully made that argument. Not in three different Federal Court of Appeals cases, one confirmed by the SCOTUS. This thread is much ado about nothing.

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

Then what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.

how about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?

It does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ahem, where did I say the AR15 wasn't a good self defense weapon? I in fact did not say that. I said it wasn't a good military weapon.

Secondly, where in the 2nd does it require something to be a good defensive weapon to be allowed?

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

Then what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.

how about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?

It does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.

doesn't make it any less stupid

and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns

 

[Winston]

Again, who ******* cares. I told you the standard. Now, can you or can you not make the argument that the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely CRITICAL to one's ability to protect themselves as an individual?

Damn, the whole Heller decision didn't revolve around guns, or even handguns, it was TRIGGER LOCKS. The court ruled that the TRIGGER LOCKS sufficiently hampered an individual's ability to protect themselves. Kind of makes sense, in the dark of the night, while trying to defend one's self against an intruder, trigger locks could get in the way. So requiring trigger locks for handguns was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But you can't make the argument that not having an assault rifle is anything close to the same thing. Heller didn't say you could have any gun, any time, anywhere. In fact, it specifically states that the decision in no way hampered a state or localities ability to REGULATE arms.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.

Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.

Then what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.

how about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?

It does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.

doesn't make it any less stupid

and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns

I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.

Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.