- Thread starter
- #21
Methinks you missed the point.No military in the world uses AR15's.... they use M-16's and AK 47's for lightweight long guns....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Methinks you missed the point.No military in the world uses AR15's.... they use M-16's and AK 47's for lightweight long guns....
No I think you have... the AR 15 is semi auto... nations don't consider them war ready in any way.... so your headline is wrong....Methinks you missed the point.
Not just kill people, but kill a lot of people in a short period of time!!!
AND... the 5.56x45 round fired by the AR15 DOES do significantly more trauma than a handgun round -- it's a RIFLE round.
OK?
So what?
AR15 are in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.
As such, they are "bearable arms"; as they are "bearable arms" they to not fall under the conjunctive "dangerous and unusual" exception
As they are "bearable arms", the right of the people to own and use them for those purposes is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Your whining and crying about "weapon of war", "designed to kill" and "more trauma than a hand gun" cannot be more irrelevant to the above.
And THEN:
The entire point of the 2nd is to make sure the people who would comprise well-regulated militia had access to weapons suitable for service in same - that is, "weapons of war".
Looks like you need to ask for different talking points.
Read harder.No I think you have... the AR 15 is semi auto... nations don't consider them war ready in any way.... so your headline is wrong....
Can you walk into Dicks and buy a sawed off shotgun?v Bruen says otherwise.
...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
Said required demonstration cannot me made.
I really wish that I could agree with, and I do. The entire point of the second amendment is to make sure people who would comprise a militia have access to suitable weapons. But that ship has long ago sailed away. Heller pretty much put a nail in the coffin of what was already past dead.Not just kill people, but kill a lot of people in a short period of time!!!
AND... the 5.56x45 round fired by the AR15 DOES do significantly more trauma than a handgun round -- it's a RIFLE round.
OK?
So what?
AR15s are in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.
As such, they are "bearable arms"; as they are "bearable arms" they to not fall under the conjunctive "dangerous and unusual" exception.
As they are "bearable arms", the right of the people to own and use them for those purposes is protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment.
Your whining and crying about "weapon of war", "designed to kill" and "more trauma than a hand gun" cannot be more irrelevant to the above.
And THEN:
The entire point of the 2nd is to make sure the people who would comprise the well-regulated militia have access to weapons suitable for service in same - that is, "weapons of war".
Looks like you need to ask for different talking points.
Ah. You have no meaningful response.No?
Then your response is irrelevant.
I agree with what you said its just the title of the thread... I argue with people here all the time that say the AR is a weapon of war but its not as far as any military in the world believes... the range is shorter with an AR and that's why army's find them unsuitable for combat...Read harder.
You can get a shortbarreled weapon that fires a shotgun shell if the barrel is rifled,Can you walk into Dicks and buy a sawed off shotgun?
How about a machine gun?
Hand grenades?
Missile launchers?
No?
Then your response is irrelevant.
The point is:I agree with what you said its just the title of the thread...
thats only because they have something better,,No I think you have... the AR 15 is semi auto... nations don't consider them war ready in any way.... so your headline is wrong....
I don't usually include you with the usual progs on here.Personally, I usually don't stand up, preferring prone supported firing position, so I can really reach out and zero in on distant range targets, for me 300 meters plus, without scope.
People that think it a weapon of war to take up against a government force (ours or anybody else's) are idiots, that have never seen me put on a "Mad Minute" Combine Arms firepower demonstration with tanks, infantry and mortars or Artillery support. It was awesome, to say the least, and that was without close air support of A-10s or helicopter gunships. Non-military or even non Combat Arms people truly cannot imagine, as movies don't do justice compared to being there.
thats also considering that many of the military will refuse to fire on americans if not outright helping us,,I don't usually include you with the usual progs on here.
I know you aren't as dumb as so many of them when it comes to common sense even though I know you're a Dem still.
I always hear how standing against the govt is impossible because of all their technology & weapons.
I don't buy it at all.
It would not be a stand up fight & that limits the military firepower superiority greatly.
If the 3rd century Taliban that wipe their asses with a bare hand can do it, I think a nation of millions of hunters has a chance, particularly since the rank & file in the military isn't going to be happy about any orders to fire on the freedom loving citizens they identify with.
I just hope it never comes to that but the odds that it will go up everyday.
The modern DC UNiparty agenda is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers gave us & it isn't stopping on it's own.
Going after our kids, cars & freedoms will eventually result in a violent response.
It won't come to it, but NO. It would have zero chance of success. It is just a fact of the armament, the training, and the desire to stay alive by uniformed forces with their own kids, wives and lives in the balance. Don't sweat it. It will not happen.I don't usually include you with the usual progs on here.
I know you aren't as dumb as so many of them when it comes to common sense even though I know you're a Dem still.
I always hear how standing against the govt is impossible because of all their technology & weapons.
I don't buy it at all.
It would not be a stand up fight & that limits the military firepower superiority greatly.
If the 3rd century Taliban that wipe their asses with a bare hand can do it, I think a nation of millions of hunters has a chance, particularly since the rank & file in the military isn't going to be happy about any orders to fire on the freedom loving citizens they identify with.
I just hope it never comes to that but the odds that it will go up everyday.
The modern DC UNiparty agenda is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers gave us & it isn't stopping on it's own.
Going after our kids, cars & freedoms will eventually result in a violent response.
So you think the Dems are gonna knock off all the crazy shit & become reasonable people again?It won't come to it, but NO. It would have zero chance of success. It is just a fact of the armament, the training, and the desire to stay alive by uniformed forces with their own kids, wives and lives in the balance. Don't sweat it. It will not happen.
Some will not, or at least, I would be highly surprised. Just like some of the far right wing will not become reasonable again, either. It won't worry me much unless they are unreasonable with me face to face, and that too, is unlikely.So you think the Dems are gonna knock off all the crazy shit & become reasonable people again?
I hope you're right.
Otherwise, this only ends in violence.
You left this out: AR15s are good for destroying the bodies of small children. The children in the Uvalde, Texas school shooting had to be identified by their DNA samples because there wasn't much of their bodies left.Not just kill people, but kill a lot of people in a short period of time!!!
AND... the 5.56x45 round fired by the AR15 DOES do significantly more trauma than a handgun round -- it's a RIFLE round.
OK?
So what?
AR15s are in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.
As such, they are "bearable arms"; as they are "bearable arms" they to not fall under the conjunctive "dangerous and unusual" exception.
As they are "bearable arms", the right of the people to own and use them for those purposes is protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment.
Your whining and crying about "weapon of war", "designed to kill" and "more trauma than a hand gun" cannot be more irrelevant to the above.
And THEN:
The entire point of the 2nd is to make sure the people who would comprise the well-regulated militia have access to weapons suitable for service in same - that is, "weapons of war".
Looks like you need to ask for different talking points.
of course we do,, they are also good for killing commies and all sorts of vermin,,You left this out: AR15s are good for destroying the bodies of small children. The children in the Uvalde, Texas school shooting had to be identified by their DNA samples because there wasn't much of their bodies left.
Do we really need AR15s for civilian use?