CDZ What is the difference between a Machine Gun and an AR-15?

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,473
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
It should be noted...
The LV shooter fired 1100 rounds, with 480 hits (58 Killed, 422 wounded) for a 43.6% hit rate,
This is impressively low, given the target and distance.

Indeed, the casualties caused by LV shooter was -limited- by the fact he used a number of AR15s with bump stocks - he could have easily killed and wounded significantly more people with a different choice of weapon.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,262
Reaction score
17,320
Points
2,180
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual
Cite that ruling.
He can not because ak-47 and AR-15 are protected by the IN COMMON USE ruling.
Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles, it has never held that such weapons are in common use.

Yes.....they did....Scalia stated it in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park, having also written the D.C v Heller opinion......so you are just wrong...

Scalia first in Heller....then in Friedman...

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.

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

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,552
Reaction score
12,273
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession not entitled to Constitutional protections.
This is a lie.
Wrong.

It’s both a fact and the truth:

Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.

As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’

Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf

The lie is that banning AR 15s would be 'un-Constitutional', when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,473
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me

Godboy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
17,576
Reaction score
3,674
Points
280
OK I get it, you need a bump stock to get the multiple shots per second out of an AR-15. But even an average shooter could fire at a rate of 2 rounds per second. So without a bump stock or other mod, the AR-15 is not a machine gun per the 1934 definition. But it also isn't much of a stretch to say that the AR-15 meets the "intent" of a machine gun which is to throw lots of lead in the air in a short period of time, yes?
You would be extremely innacurate if you were pulling the trigger 2 times per second. If you really wanted to kill a bunch of people, you would need to take your time in order to steady and aim your gun.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,262
Reaction score
17,320
Points
2,180
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession not entitled to Constitutional protections.
This is a lie.
Wrong.

It’s both a fact and the truth:

Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.

As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’

Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf

The lie is that banning AR 15s would be 'un-Constitutional', when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.

You and those judges are wrong....as I pointed out with the actual ruling from Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Friedman v Highland Park...

Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second

And that quote shows that this court is a rogue court......that is completely ignoring 2nd Amendment Case law and 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence from multiple decisions by the Supreme Court...hoping that the Supreme Court will fail to hear cases that will strike down their decision here....

First...Heller...... then Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller stating that the AR-15 rifle, by name, is protected by the 2nd Amendment.....making your quote and their decision unConstitutional...

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.

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

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.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,262
Reaction score
17,320
Points
2,180
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession not entitled to Constitutional protections.
This is a lie.
Wrong.

It’s both a fact and the truth:

Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.

As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’

Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf

The lie is that banning AR 15s would be 'un-Constitutional', when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.

And again.....Justice Alito stating that the "dangerous and unusual" statement in Heller does not ban these rifles....

...from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

clayton..... you are a hack.....this court knows they are violating the Constitution, and multiple rulings from the Supreme Court....hoping that Roberts will bend to popular pressure and not take up their case to slap it down as ignoring the Supreme Court...

Caetano v Massachusetts already settled the "Dangerous and Unusual" lie that this court is using......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).


Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,262
Reaction score
17,320
Points
2,180
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession not entitled to Constitutional protections.
This is a lie.
Wrong.
It’s both a fact and the truth:
It does not matter how many times you repeat your lie, it remains a lie.

And claytion also knows that this ruling would allow banning all semi-automatic rifles, pistols, shotguns and they could even squeeze in revolvers...since they all operate the same way.....
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
60,661
Reaction score
11,968
Points
2,070
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
So for each and every shot, they have to pull the trigger? What makes it semi-automatic then?
If a rifle automatically loads a new round/'bullet' after the previous one is fired, it is a semi-automatic. If it also automatically fires when reloaded, then it is a full automatic rifle.

Can you fire a lot of shots in one round? Holy crap... and come to think of it, what the heck is a "round"? How does that work? And what the heck is a "magazine"? :( I know less than a kindergartner, so please be gentle with this dummy!
A round = a bullet + casing, powder and primer. It is the full enchilada.

A magazine holds multiple rounds and generally uses a spring to push the next one up to be reloaded as the new loaded round.


And what is the power of the bullets out of an AR15 vs just a rifle? Cuz I read an article once by a doctor who works the ER and gunshot wounds and the doc said that these semi automatic Rifles tear the victim apart, and there are slim to no chance of survival if they are hit in an organ by them but if just a regular gun, the Docs have a much better chance of saving the victim even with a direct hit to an organ....???
High powered rounds tend to pass through muscle and skin without extra damage, and unless they hit an organ or a bone that makes it ricochet, it will be just a through and through wound which are generally minor.

A shotgun does much more damage, like my 12 gauge I have loaded with extra pellet 0-0 buckshot. That can cut a person in half if they are skinny, lol. I load for fat criminals, lol.

A 0-0 buckshoit pellet is about the same size as a 9mm bullet and my 12 gauge rounds throw about 12 down range. It could ruin someone's day, for sure.

In combat infantry teamms, there is generally only one full auto guy whose role is to defend the base line of fire, which is basically the line right in front of his own men and oversees a critical field of fire. For example, if you are trying to control a road, you would put your men on the highest ground near a turn in the road, and have the full auto guy posted at the curve in such a way that he is able to aim down the road and also clear the area immediately in front of his squad of men.

The full auto guy also carries lot of ammunition as he will go through it like mad. Even he has to control how much he uses his ammo so he wont run out or melt his barrel and warp it.

Everyone else should be on single shot fire or they will run out of ammo too quickly. IMO a three round burst is still too much, as the second round is usually off two to four inches, depending on distance to the target, and the third round is off a whole lot more, a foot or more, and is wasted ammo. You only use full auto if a lot of bad guys are trying to over run your position. But that is why you should have obstacles, trip wires and some sort of mine in front of your position, generally.
 
Last edited:

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
60,661
Reaction score
11,968
Points
2,070
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Unless you are shooting at a mass of charging enemy soldiers, the best thing a machinegun does is make everyone duck for cover. That is the main tactical use.
AKA 'suppressive fire'.

BTW a round is not quite the same thing as a bullet, though I am guessing you know that, lol, but just for the record.
 

Pilot1

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
1,487
Points
290
AR-15's are the most popular rifle in the U.S. and semi auto handguns are the most popular in that category. Both COMMON USE which is the litmus test if they are covered as an individual right under the 2A.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top