The AR-15 follies: Here we go again!

Irrelevant if semi or not. The constitution makes no distinction.

 

That’s really funny? I didn’t know all criminals, the underaged and criminally insane had all their civil rights, I guess you’re supporting the civil right to vote be given to a two year old.....maybe the right to have easy access to any material n the net..in defense of the first amendment . Guess what ? You give up many of your civil rights in those situation. You just want to insure that gun horders are free to sell and transfer guns in your words, to any motherfker they want....

 

Moving the goal,posts ? You made it relevant. You said handguns are used instead of semi autos .

 

Why don’t you just amend this statement and chalk it up to a momentary lapse of sanity and move on. If you don’t think it’s weird and contradictory, you just gave up any hope of being taken seriously by your fellow firearm rights crowd.

 

The interpretations by the conservative supreme courts have everything to do with common use which includes hunting.....probably more so then any other use in early America. . We are carnivores.

 

Common use includes more than hunting. Common use is self defense, common use is national defense. All of those things the ar-15 meets the criteria of.

 

I’m just trying to get you to admit that hunting was a common use. Aamof, early militia companies had units that used nothing but hunting firearms. Like the bow and arrow regardless of what you see in fanciful movies, firearms and most weapons early on were instruments to hunt with, especially during the rev. war.

The AR15 was developed / invented by Stoner first all, as a weapon of war, not a hunting weapon, while he worked for Armalite to replace several weapons, one of which was the automatic firearm another a semi auto rifle, all in a light firearm wheener draftees could manage.

 

I’m completely uninterested in the intended purpose of the original design. I’m here to keep the discussion factual. You provided information that was not factual (you keep doing that regularly) and I simply corrected you. It is more difficult to convert to full auto than you claim. Many AR-15’s also have to have more material removed from the lower receiver to accommodate a full auto sear. Your claim all that is necessary in all cases is to drill a third hole is not accurate information. I know accuracy is not important to authoritarians. You are demonstrating that fact well. I appreciate every false claim you make because it shows the most authoritarian are the least informed on the things they wish to control.

 

You know no AR15 derived from the Colt Sporter has ever been issued by any military, any where.
You know no AR15 derived from the Colt Sporter has ever been used in any battle, by any military, any where.
Thus
You know your 'weapon of war" nonsense is just another dishonest attempt to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

Your statement is false.
At least 41 of the ~925 people (~4.4%) killed in mass shotongs over the last 40 year were killed with punp-action shotguns and/or revolvers.
As your statement is ~95.6% true, it means you know the AR15, as you choose to use the term in this conversation, has never been used in a mass shooting.

You know no AR15 derived from the Colt Sporter has ever been issued by any military, any where.
You know no AR15 derived from the Colt Sporter has ever been used in any battle, by any military, any where.
Thus
You know your 'weapon of war" nonsense is just another dishonest attempt to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

Interesting. Thanks for the cite.

I'm reminded of a ruling in the British case Rex v Dewhurst in 1820:

"A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."

Are jackknives ever used in war? Should they be regarded as a weapon of war as well?

When people hear the term weapon of war they are not thinking of every little thing that a soldier might possess. They are thinking of weapons like machine guns and bazookas.

Machine guns and bazookas were heavily restricted nearly 90 years ago, and the legal ownership of such weapons is no longer a problem for society.

Which statement of mine would you like a cite for?

 

That "some" restrictions are "undoubtedly permissible" in no way supports the position that any given specific restriction is permissible.
Further, as was "acknowledge at the time" that all but a few people - most notably, slaves - could own any weapon they wanted.

 

Does a criminal about to be arrested have a clear right to defend himself. Is he excused from shooting a cop who was trying to deny him “ his rights”.
Everything with gunners are absolutes like a “man, people, citizens” implies absolutely everyone.

Just answer one question. Are any of your rights absolute ?

 

Nice straw man you have there - did you dress him yourself?
The fact you have to misrepresent the positions of others concedes your inability to argue against same.

 

This isn’t hard.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/vietnam-weapons-war/

 

The intended design of the AR15 is still active today. It was intended to be a weapon of war.....it still is.

 

There's your pidgin logic again, dishonestly trying to interject the Armalite AR15 into a discussion about 'assault weapons'.

You know no AR15 derived from the Colt Sportster has ever been issued by any military, any where.
You know no AR15 derived from the Colt Sportster has ever been used in any battle, by any military, any where.
Thus
You know your 'weapon of war" nonsense is just another dishonest attempt to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

And I’ve never addressed that point because it is completely irrelevant. I don’t care if a firearm was designed for military use or not. Has no bearing on whether it’s a good fit for civilian use or not. You are arguing a point that has no relevance.

And most of your posts are not factual.

 

That depends.

If the police are carrying out a lawful arrest, then no.

However, if those police are actually criminals who are breaking the law (say like those southern police officers who arrested voting rights activists and then murdered them back in the 1960s) then I would say yes.

No. Rights can be restricted if the restrictions pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

The semi-auto-only versions are not intended to be weapons of war.

Weapons of war were heavily restricted nearly 90 years ago and the legal ownership of such weapons has not been a problem since then.

 

Only sorta.
M1 Garands are weapons or war, almost entirely unregulated, and to my knowledge, legal everywhere,

 

So you believe in firearm regulations.

 

So, the M1 Garand and Berretta 92 FS are not a weapons of war ? The m16 is not a weapon of war when the selector switch is on semi auto. How about the Armalite 15 with select fire ?

 

The AR15 is a “good” fit for those wanting to committed mass murder.
They have been restricted for ownership in seven states.....for that reason.

 

I would not consider that a weapon of war as the term "weapon of war" is usually understood to mean by the public.

 

It depends on the regulation.

I certainly don't believe in any regulation that cannot pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

There is no guarantee that I will support a regulation just because it passes muster with Strict Scrutiny. But do accept that some regulation is necessary.

Not as the term "weapons of war" is usually understood to mean by the public.

The capability for full-auto and/or burst-fire makes them weapons of war.

No more than other weapons that lack a pistol grip.

That is incorrect. The reason why these states restrict guns with pistol grips is because the left enjoys violating people's civil liberties.