The reason Democrats are targeting "assault" rifles

[Winston]

No, you're just a pansy.

Wow.

Just. Fucking. Wow.

If you morons couldn't say CONSERVATIVES ARE ALL NAZIS, you wouldn't have a fucking thing to say, would you?

Meanwhile, the left's doing the exact same thing, only the people you want disarmed are law-abiding gun owners. You see them as dangerous because they can resist leftist tyranny. Simultaneously, you don't even make a pretense of disarming criminals, because you WANT crime. You WANT people to be victims of crime -- so you can swoop in and save everyone.

It will be amusing watching you sputter and fume, lying that that isn't your goal. Amusing -- and completely unbelievable.

Nobody is wanting to disarm anyone. You can have all the guns you want, you just can't have assault rifles. Why is it you damn gun nuts want to fabricate your own argument. Can you not defend the AR on it's own? The whole resist tyranny bullshit is absolutely comical, as if AR-15's can deter a fully equipped army. Thank goodness Ukraine has not depended on the AR-15. You morons live in a fantasy land.

And I hate to break the news to you, the second amendment was never about arming the population to overthrow a government. I mean if that was the case there would not have been an Article 3, Section 3 in the US Constitution.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The primary basis of the second amendment is the fact that the founders never intended for us to have a standing army. They wanted the population armed so that they could defend the United States, not attack it. And to be brutally honest, anyone that has actually read the Constitution would understand that.

Like I said, you morons live in a fantasy world. You actually believe that with your glorified plinking gun you are going to save America. The reality is that, if push comes to shove, you will be clutching that AR while quivering under your bed.

 

[BULLDOG]

Is that why you want other men with guns to take his guns away from him? Because you're so courageous?

I have never supported confiscating guns from reasonable citizens. I would make an exception in his particular case. He's nuts.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, it's not. You want women disarmed. Why?

So you're another nut bag who thinks he knows more about what I want than I do. Not surprising.

 

[Winston]

So, you're afraid of the scary black rifles -- it's because they're black, isn't it? -- so nobody should be allowed to have them.

This is America. We don't remove people's rights because some leftists are afraid.

Piss off you stupid shit. You don't have the right to carry any gun, anywhere, any time. The great Scalia said as much in his opinion under Heller. I am not afraid. Your pansy ass is the one afraid, you need a gun to feel safe. I don't need a gun. Matter of fact, pull a gun on me, especially an assault rifle, and I am just as likely to shove that gun up your ass as you are to shoot me.

 

[Winston]

So, you're glad children are killed by abortion.

But you're angry children are killed by firearms.

You have no concern about children; you just want people who can resist leftist tyranny disarmed.

You ain't going to resist jackshit. I swear, you fuckers are morons. You going to make a stand with a pussy ass AR-15 chambered in a .223? Where, in your house that is pissing distance from your next door neighbor. Bring it dumbshit. I live a mile down a private dirt road with 200 yards of clearance between my house and anything else. I be damned if I have an pussy ass AR-15. I have an FAL at 7.65 mm, Appleseed qualified. You step out of the woods and in that open area and I am popping your ass in the head. Every single member of my family, or my "army" as Dad calls it, can do the same. They were raised that way, not because they might have to overthrow the government, but because they might have to put down stupid dickshits like you.

 

[daveman]

Nobody is wanting to disarm anyone. You can have all the guns you want, you just can't have assault rifles.

If an AR is the only firearm someone owns, and you take it away, you've disarmed him or her.

You're really not a smart person.

 

[daveman]

I have never supported confiscating guns from reasonable citizens. I would make an exception in his particular case. He's nuts.

No, he just says things you don't like. But you want him disarmed for that.

Winston says nobody wants to disarm anybody. But there you are. You need to tell him he's wrong.

 

[daveman]

So you're another nut bag who thinks he knows more about what I want than I do. Not surprising.

It's pretty obvious, dude.

 

[daveman]

Piss off you stupid shit. You don't have the right to carry any gun, anywhere, any time. The great Scalia said as much in his opinion under Heller. I am not afraid. Your pansy ass is the one afraid, you need a gun to feel safe. I don't need a gun. Matter of fact, pull a gun on me, especially an assault rifle, and I am just as likely to shove that gun up your ass as you are to shoot me.

Ooooh, tough guy. Okay, show of hands, who's intimidated?

Odd. I count zero. How about you?

 

[daveman]

You ain't going to resist jackshit. I swear, you fuckers are morons. You going to make a stand with a pussy ass AR-15 chambered in a .223? Where, in your house that is pissing distance from your next door neighbor. Bring it dumbshit. I live a mile down a private dirt road with 200 yards of clearance between my house and anything else. I be damned if I have an pussy ass AR-15. I have an FAL at 7.65 mm, Appleseed qualified. You step out of the woods and in that open area and I am popping your ass in the head. Every single member of my family, or my "army" as Dad calls it, can do the same. They were raised that way, not because they might have to overthrow the government, but because they might have to put down stupid dickshits like you.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You like the taste of government bootleather. No, no matter how much you stamp your feet and pout, I will not be joining you in licking boots.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's pretty obvious, dude.

You bet. I'll bet those voices in your head agree with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, all "bearable arms" are protected by the Constitution? Sawed off shotguns, fully automatic weapons--they are bearable arms.

Ah. You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
"Bearable arms" are those weapons "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
So...
The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of banning them.

 

[Vrenn]

Ah. You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
"Bearable arms" are those weapons "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
So...
The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of banning them.

The Thompson M1921 was also a bearable arm. The BAR was not. But the criminals using the Thompson made it damned dangerous just to go out to get a meal. While the mobsters were wiping out each other there were too many civilian being killed and maimed at the same time. So don't tell me that the Feds can't include the AR-15 into the National Fire Arms Act.

 

[Pellinore]

Ah. You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
"Bearable arms" are those weapons "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
So...
The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of banning them.

I think you're conflating two separate Second Amendment ideas, but I get what you're talking about.

Justice Scalia often pointed out that because the Second Amendment used the term "to ... bear arms," their intent was that the Amendment didn't apply to weapons that could not be borne—battleships, cannons, and so on.

Separate from that, one of the points he made writing for the majority in Heller vs. DC was that it was their intention for the Second Amendment to apply to weapons that were in common use at the time, meaning the musket or long rifle that was hanging over each family's mantelpiece. He then applied that to modern times, and deduced that, if they were aware of modern technology, they would have been referring to semi-automatic rifles, which, he argued, were in common use in 2008.

That does not mean that he, or any other originalist or pro-gun advocate, thought that all bearable arms were declared in common use. It boggles the mind to imagine him thinking that a javelin or a Stinger missile, not to mention any of the weapons expressly included in the National Firearms Acts, were considered in common use simply because they could be picked up and carried.

BUT
I see what you mean. The AR-15 does not meet the definition of an assault rifle, because it lacks a selector switch and therefore full-auto capability. Also, regardless of who does and does not agree with him, Justice Scalia was specifically writing about firearms like the AR-15 when he was defining "common use" weapons in Heller.

 

[Vrenn]

I think you're conflating two separate Second Amendment ideas, but I get what you're talking about.

Justice Scalia often pointed out that because the Second Amendment used the term "to ... bear arms," their intent was that the Amendment didn't apply to weapons that could not be borne—battleships, cannons, and so on.

Separate from that, one of the points he made writing for the majority in Heller vs. DC was that it was their intention for the Second Amendment to apply to weapons that were in common use at the time, meaning the musket or long rifle that was hanging over each family's mantelpiece. He then applied that to modern times, and deduced that, if they were aware of modern technology, they would have been referring to semi-automatic rifles, which, he argued, were in common use in 2008.

That does not mean that he, or any other originalist or pro-gun advocate, thought that all bearable arms were declared in common use. It boggles the mind to imagine him thinking that a javelin or a Stinger missile, not to mention any of the weapons expressly included in the National Firearms Acts, were considered in common use simply because they could be picked up and carried.

BUT
I see what you mean. The AR-15 does not meet the definition of an assault rifle, because it lacks a selector switch and therefore full-auto capability. Also, regardless of who does and does not agree with him, Justice Scalia was specifically writing about firearms like the AR-15 when he was defining "common use" weapons in Heller.

Full auto settings doesn't get in the way of Heller V either. In 1929, the Thompson M1921 fit the role that you believe the AR does now. They specifically wrote the NFA to deal with it in 1934. And it was done by no confiscations other than confiscating them when used in criminal acts. It took about 10 years and the 1921 was all but gone. There has been a couple of laws passed that tightens it up a bit more but the 1934 National Firearms Act shows that it can be done if a weapon is deemed a public healthy hazard.

 

[daveman]

You bet. I'll bet those voices in your head agree with you.

I have no mental issues. I am not a leftist.

 

[daveman]

I have an FAL at 7.65 mm...

You obviously have no need for that weapon. And you damn sure wouldn't pass a psych eval, you nutcase.