What is it with these anti gun idiots?

[Hum Dinger]

And thus, is exactly the sort of firearm intended to be protected by the 2nd.

"All bearable arms" - your opinion doesn't matter.

The "Right to Bear Arms" does not mean "All Bearable Arms". SCOTUS has already made that clear.

These types of weapons were banned between 1994-2004. So, your opinion doesn't matter.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hum Dinger]

FYI:
One of these rounds is that normally fired from the AR15 - it shatters bone, liquefies organs and vaporizes children.
The other is one of the most popular hunting rounds in North America.

Which is which?


View attachment 861923

I don't know, I don't own one.

But I do know that people that have been murdered with AR-15 - especially children - are unrecognizable. Their bodies are ripped apart. They have to be identified using DNA testing.

 

[Bell Huey]

The "Right to Bear Arms" does not mean "All Bearable Arms". SCOTUS has already made that clear.

These types of weapons were banned between 1994-2004. So, your opinion doesn't matter.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ANd they are not banned now.

ANd banned is a strong word. If you already owned one you could keep it. Second, these kind of bans have opened up a whole new industry for the firearm manufacturers. It is called ban compliant ar style weapons:

FIREARMS - RIFLES - STATE COMPLIANT AR-15 (CA CO NJ MA) - Tactical Defense Solutions | Dollar Guns & Ammo

www.tds-us.com

SMITH & WESSON M&P15 SPORT II CA COMPLIANT SEMI-AUTOMATIC 223 REM/5.56 NATO 16 10+1 BLACK F 12001​

This is because the ban you are fond of, plus the state bans, and any proposals do not focus on function. They focus on external appearance. That's it. They fire the same round and operate the same way. The below weapon has always fired the same round with the same lethality:

That's a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch. Not under any state ban.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don't know, I don't own one.

But I do know that people that have been murdered with AR-15 - especially children - are unrecognizable. Their bodies are ripped apart. They have to be identified using DNA testing.

After being shot multiple times. Even a fifty caliber BMG round won't rip a body apart like you describe. "Many of the bodies were in bad shape, having been riddled with bullets." That's from the interview with the coroner who did the autopsies. The .223/5.56mm round is pretty anemic by any rational standard. A 30/30 round dating back to 1895 is far more powerful and does more damage.

 

[2aguy]

There are plenty of types of guns which would afford you the protection that you think you need. They're also very capable of shooting skunks.

The argument about gun control isn't about all guns, it's about guns that were specifically designed as battlefield weapons and have a much greater capacity for killing than you will ever possibly need.

Which guns are the battlefield weapons.....? Care to explain?

Do you mean the pump action, 5 shot shotgun? Currently in use by every branch of the U.S. military....

How about the bolt action rifle? Currently in use by every branch of the U.S. military.

You are either uninformed, or an anti-gun extremists playing your game.......the only reason the anti-gun military wants to target "battlefield" weapons is then they can ban every gun out there......

The 6 shot revolver was originally a battlefield weapon....as was the lever action rifle.....

And, since knives, clubs and bare hands are used to murder more people every single year than all rifles, let alone AR-15 rifles......do you want to ban knives, clubs and bare hands?

Please be consistent.

 

[2aguy]

I don't know, I don't own one.

But I do know that people that have been murdered with AR-15 - especially children - are unrecognizable. Their bodies are ripped apart. They have to be identified using DNA testing.

You don't know what you are talking about.....those children were left in a room with the killer who shot them over and over again at close range.......nothing about that rifle or the bullet it fired would mutilate bodies the way the left wing press screeched about after the attack...

Mark Bowden's bestselling book Black Hawk Down gives vivid accounts of less-than-lethal performance of the Army's green-tip 5.56mm bullet (M855) in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. He describes one Delta operator's rounds as

passing right through his targets. When the Sammies were close enough he could see when he hit them. . . . t was like sticking somebody with an ice pick. The bullet made a small, clean hole, and unless hit happened to hit the heart or spine, it wasn't enough to stop a man in his tracks. [The operator] felt like he had to hit a guy five or six times just to get his attention.

These instances are consistent with Dr. Fackler's own findings. He recounts that

n 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked into my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet's temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly.

Dr. Fackler further notes that "n my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that [the 5.56mm] produced unacceptably minimal, rather than 'massive,' wounds."

Like any firearm, the AR rifle in typical calibers such as .223/5.56mm, can cause serious or lethal wounds, and so can other rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Wound profiles from the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory illustrate the permanent and temporary cavities, penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation of both the deforming (soft-point) .223 caliber bullet, the non-deforming 5.56mm FMJ bullet, and other larger caliber bullets typically used in hunting rifles (e.g., .30-30, .308). A comparison of those profiles shows that the wounding effects of the larger caliber bullets are at least as extensive as the .223/5.56, and typically more so.

According to Dr. Fackler, the .223 Remington is "a 'varmint' cartridge, used effectively for shooting woodchucks, crows, and coyotes." Because of its smaller size, there is an ongoing debate among hunters over whether the .223 round has adequate terminal performance for taking deer or larger game. Some states ban the use of .223 caliber rifles when hunting deer and other animals larger than varmints because their rounds lack sufficient power. The ethos of hunting is to take an animal with a single fatal shot. In the views of some state game commissions, the usual AR calibers of .223 and 5.56mm are too weak; at least a .270 is required for hunting deer, antelope, or anything larger.



How powerful are AR rifles?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The "Right to Bear Arms" does not mean "All Bearable Arms". SCOTUS has already made that clear.

Your statement is a lie.

Heller:
"...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Caetano:
"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”

Thus: "All bearable arms"
Your opinion does not matter.

These types of weapons were banned between 1994-2004.

Blacks were held as slaves, 1619-1865

 

[2aguy]

The "Right to Bear Arms" does not mean "All Bearable Arms". SCOTUS has already made that clear.

These types of weapons were banned between 1994-2004. So, your opinion doesn't matter.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where did you get that silliness? Do you even bother to do any research before you post?

 

[2aguy]

The AR-15 was modeled after the M-16. It has the same killing capacity, except that it's semi-automatic instead of fully automatic.

Look up the history of the AR-15. It is designed for combat. It is capable of penetrating steel helmets at quite a distance. It's bullets tumble - ripping the insides of the victim apart before exiting.

There is no valid need for that level of fire power to defend yourself or to kill animals.

You don't know what you are talking about....

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians
=======

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know,

And thus, your admit you argue from ignorance.

But I do know that people that have been murdered with AR-15 - especially children - are unrecognizable. Their bodies are ripped apart. They have to be identified using DNA testing.

What point do you think this proves, and why?

 

[2aguy]

The AR-15 was modeled after the M-16. It has the same killing capacity, except that it's semi-automatic instead of fully automatic.

Look up the history of the AR-15. It is designed for combat. It is capable of penetrating steel helmets at quite a distance. It's bullets tumble - ripping the insides of the victim apart before exiting.

There is no valid need for that level of fire power to defend yourself or to kill animals.

So what you are saying is putting a Prius engine in a NASCAR body makes it a race car.....right? Car to race in it?

That is how silly your argument is....

 

[2aguy]

FYI -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/

1) It's behind a paywall....

2) Any rifle at close range will do damage to a human body...but do you know what is worse...far worsse?

A .......shotgun.....an actual military weapon, in use by every branch of the U.S. military....

 

[Hum Dinger]

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

 

[Bell Huey]

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

And for 140 or so years the FED GOV did not create any gun laws or regulations. Not until the NFA of 1934. And of course it did not ban firearms, it just made certain types harder to obtain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Nothing here changes the fact the 2nd protects the right to own and use "All bearable arms" for traditionally legal purposes.

 

[2aguy]

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

Yeah....you idiots never post the rest of Heller....or his opinion in Friedman v Highland park.....

Here, educate yourself...

Also from Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Friedman....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
=====
====

 

[Blues Man]

Self defense, you don't need a gun whatsoever.

But you don't understand that do you?

Sure you do is you are outnumbered or maybe facing a larger stronger attacker or you are protecting someone else.

You don't need homeowners' insurance either but you're an idiot if you don't have it.

 

[Blues Man]

So you want guns to shoot others, that's the worst type of person to have a gun, you're totally unsuitable and dangerous.

I don't want to shoot anyone but if I have to I will

 

[Captain Caveman]

Sure you do is you are outnumbered or maybe facing a larger stronger attacker or you are protecting someone else.

You don't need homeowners' insurance either but you're an idiot if you don't have it.

When has that happened to you, legitimately and honestly?

Why do you feel you need to shoot someone? If you have a culture that believes it's acceptable to shoot others, what do you think the gun stats will show compared to, say, a European member country?

 

[Captain Caveman]

I don't want to shoot anyone but if I have to I will

And that mentality makes you an unsuitable gun owner. Yet you feel you're the good guys. That is a fucked up society, hence the gun stats.