The Right To Bear Arms

[watchingfromafar]

Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....

Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
let me guess, you are a NRA member-?

 

[watchingfromafar]

You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.

The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.

That need has long since faded away

-

 

[Rigby5]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.

It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.

Nonsense. All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time. All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc. And you can not make plastic guns. The barrel has to be steel. Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion. Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.

 

[Rigby5]

Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....

Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
let me guess, you are a NRA member-?

Everyone SHOULD have something to hide, from a government that has repeatedly committed mass murder and war crimes, like murdering 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, institutionalized torture, illegal renditions like Guantanamo, etc.
This government has committed more war crimes than the rest of the world put together.

 

[Rigby5]

You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.

The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.

That need has long since faded away

-

No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right. Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
That is because no government can ever be trusted.
Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.

And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us. Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.

The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.

That need has long since faded away

-

No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right. Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
That is because no government can ever be trusted.
Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.

And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us. Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to ‘fight crime.’

And it was not intended to ‘overthrow’ a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment being completely devoid of merit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.

It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.

Nonsense. All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time. All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc. And you can not make plastic guns. The barrel has to be steel. Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion. Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.

Untrue. There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers. You can make a metal barrel now. It's only good for a few shot before it splits. And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers. And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner. Either do something about it today or die by it later on.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

Wrong.

The size and weight of the bullet must be considered with how fast the bullet is traveling.

A 55 gr FMJ bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet per second; at that speed at 100 yards or less it is a powerful and devastating round.

An AR 15 in 5.56 is no manner ‘weak.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

However much trite and a cliché, it’s nonetheless true: the Stoner design was ahead of its time.

With the availability of new materials and manufacturing techniques, the AR platform can finally realize its full accuracy and reliability potential.

Of my three ARs, only one has realized a failure (a stovepipe); the other two being more ‘high end.’

The reliability champion, of course, is my AK 47; after 12 years and countless rounds, it’s never had any type of failure.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

Wrong.

The size and weight of the bullet must be considered with how fast the bullet is traveling.

A 55 gr FMJ bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet per second; at that speed at 100 yards or less it is a powerful and devastating round.

An AR 15 in 5.56 is no manner ‘weak.’

Most shots in hunting or battle fields are done at less than 100 yds and the 556 nato performs well. The 223 remington might be a bit enemic for war but is fine for anything from antelope and down. So it has it's uses. A Human is probably in the Antelope class. But the 556 or 223 really shouldn't be used for a Mule Deer (300 lbs) or an Elk (500 lbs or more) at any range. And should never be used for anything larger than a coyote longer than 100 yds. Just because you can hit it doesn't mean you can kill it. Bring the right tools to do the job.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

However much trite and a cliché, it’s nonetheless true: the Stoner design was ahead of its time.

With the availability of new materials and manufacturing techniques, the AR platform can finally realize its full accuracy and reliability potential.

Of my three ARs, only one has realized a failure (a stovepipe); the other two being more ‘high end.’

The reliability champion, of course, is my AK 47; after 12 years and countless rounds, it’s never had any type of failure.

The High End ARs are built closer to Military Specs although they can't legally say that since they aren't made by either Colt or FN. Your bargain basement is what I consider junk and most ARs out there are of that quality but the can be upgraded to good quality. What's funny, if you spend 500 bucks for a piece of junk, you can spend a bit more and get a Military Spec Colt LE6920 that is sold to the Law Enforcement Agencies for right around 899 bucks and you won't find a better AR. Yes, that's special order only and the gun crazies just can't wait that long. The saliva when they hold the junk in their hands won't allow them to wait that long.

 

[watchingfromafar]

All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.

I am sure there are folks out there that didn't know that and now they do; thanks to you

-

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread is just over six years old; and it’s been well over ten years since Heller – yet after all this time we continue to hear the same unsubstantiated, ignorant, and wrongheaded perceptions of the Second Amendment.

From the linked article in the OP:

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

A reckless, irresponsible invocation of the Second Amendment, indeed.

 

[2aguy]

Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....

Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
let me guess, you are a NRA member-?

Germany, banned guns, then murdered 12 million Europeans........Britain registered guns, then banned them. Australia registered guns, then banned them. France, dittos, Canada, New York, California.....you guys keep pretending that registration doesn't lead to eventual confiscation...and yet the real world shows you are wrong...

 

[Rigby5]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.

 

[2aguy]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.

Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.

The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....

 

[Rigby5]

You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.

The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.

That need has long since faded away

-

No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right. Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
That is because no government can ever be trusted.
Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.

And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us. Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to ‘fight crime.’

And it was not intended to ‘overthrow’ a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment being completely devoid of merit.

Wrong.
First of all, the 2nd amendment does not codify anything.
All it does is strictly prohibit federal jurisdiction over weapons.
Second of all is that not only was the US based on insurrection, but all founders wrote at great length about how they intended to ensure the capability of insurrection in the future. There is not a single signer of the Constitution that did not say openly that insurrection was assured to become necessary on a regular basis.

 

[Rigby5]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.

It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.

Nonsense. All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time. All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc. And you can not make plastic guns. The barrel has to be steel. Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion. Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.

Untrue. There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers. You can make a metal barrel now. It's only good for a few shot before it splits. And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers. And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner. Either do something about it today or die by it later on.

You did not read carefully.
I did not say you can not print a metal gun but that you can not print a plastic gun.
If you print a metal gun, it will show up on metal detectors, like all guns.
So there is no 3D printer issue.

 

[Rigby5]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

Wrong.

The size and weight of the bullet must be considered with how fast the bullet is traveling.

A 55 gr FMJ bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet per second; at that speed at 100 yards or less it is a powerful and devastating round.

An AR 15 in 5.56 is no manner ‘weak.’

Yes it is weak.
Lots of heavier rounds have similar velocities.
And velocity is a poor way of obtaining energy because friction is proportional to the square of the velocity, so loses energy very quickly. That is why the AR has such a short range.
Small cross section also means poor energy transfer, and possibility of just puncturing a small hole and going right through, without major damage. They reduce twist to increase odds of tumble to counteract that, but still the .223 is never considered a powerful round.
It should not be used for deer hunting.