Why should anyone need or want an AR-15?

Can you prove anything that you just said?

 

But there wasn't now, was there? Which proved to be a disadvantage for the security guard. A weapon used for a one man war goes up against the pistol of a security guard. Time to get rid of that one man weapon for war.

 

The proof lies with anyone having a minimal amount of intelligence.

 

LOL don't be silly.

1. Congress does not have the right to regulate firearms.

The 2nd amendment first establishes that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. As this expression does not explicitly grant or restrict any rights, and only states that a militia is necessary, the expression acts as an "introductory parenthetical element" to a conjoining statement separated by a comma. The very definition of an introductory element, or parenthetical element, is that it can be removed without changing the meaning.It is the only context by which the expression can exist.

The right to bear arms is expressly a right granted to the people, therefore protected from trespass. A right is an entitlement. A regulated right is a privilege. The regulation is therefore a property of the necessary militia, which although necessary, is not expressly a right; the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, therefore; must not be regulated.

IE: Regulated Un-Infringed Right cannot exist, because an Un-Infringed Right cannot be regulated.

If it's regulated, it's infringed.

Follow?

2. Even if you do not believe that the 2nd amendment grants un-infringed rights to citizens, I'm sure you understand that the 9th amendment clearly state any right not enumerated in the Bill of Rights is retained by the people! The people had the right to bear any firearms they liked in 1789.

3. Even if you don't believe that the 2nd and 9th amendment grant citizens the right to bare arms of any kind, un-infringed, and unregulated, surely you believe in the 10th amendment which clearly states the jurisdiction of rights not in the constitution pass to the state and the people, right? arms, to include firearms, guns, or any other form of weapon of defense or war are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution besides the 2nd amendment. And if your pretty little eyes think the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to arms to citizens, then it arms are mentioned nowhere. What this means is that firearms are outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, including congress. In order to make firearms their jurisdiction, they need to amend Article I of the constitution to include the regulation of arms. This requires a 2/3 vote of the house, 2/3 vote of the senate, and 3/4 vote of the states to ratify. Once ratified, congress can pass laws governing the regulation of firearms with a 51% vote, or establish committees who regulate such rights. Until this day, here is what congress can do without amending the constitution:

Article I of the Constitution sets forth most of the powers of Congress, which include numerous explicit powers enumerated in Section 8. Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, extended power of taxation to include income taxes.[1] The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch. Other powers granted to Congress include the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money. Generally both Senate and House have equal legislative authority although only the House may originate revenue bills and, by tradition, appropriation bills.

Hmm... lemme see here, nope nope, nope, yeah... nothing here about firearms.

So what makes you think Congress can pass laws about firearms without amending the constitution?

 

You can't get rid of them, that's the point. It's kind of like the UK and France standing around scratching their heads about automatic weapons starting to pop up all over in their countries. In Australia illegal weapon arrests are up as much as 80%.

As long as any company in the world is producing firearms, they will make their way into the hands of criminals. The more rare they are, the more valuable they are, and the more criminal enterprises will spring up to provide those weapons. As long as police and military have those weapons, they will be stolen and used by criminals.

Besides, AR15's are not weapons of war, since no one carries them into war. You can't even hunt with them in many situations because they're not considered powerful enough.

The idea that "make teh gunz illegal, teh guns can't hurt teh ppl" is just sheer mental laziness.

Along those lines are things like Initiative 594 in Washington, which requires private sales of guns to go through an FFL dealer. The state spent over 10 MILLION dollars enacting that legislation. To date, zero arrests, zero charges, zero convictions.

Such is the effectiveness in combating crime that the left exemplifies. Spend tons of money, infringe on everyone's rights.....accomplish....nothing.

 

The Supreme Court and Liberal Congress are frauds. Let me count the ways.

1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If the first segment of this passage has anything to do with the last, then how can you have "regulated" and "not be infringed" in the same sentence? To regulate is to infringe. To regulate a right is to not have a right, but instead a privilege. A right that cannot be infringed is not within the jurisdiction of government to regulate.

The first 2 segments of the amendment (segments being separated by commas) is an introductory parenthetical element. Parenthetical elements, when removed, do not change the meaning of the passage. Arms are a right of the people and cannot be infringed, no exceptions.

2. In 1789, and 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, citizens had the right to purchase firearms of any kind, of any capacity, for any purpose. In addition to the 2nd amendment, this right is protected under the 9th Amendment also. Hamilton felt that a Bill of Rights was not necessary because the constitution granted no power to congress beyond Article I of the Constitution. Fearing that the enumeration of rights (such as the 2nd amendment or any other) would be construed to imply congress had no limits on their authority or jurisdiction, the 9th amendment was ratified to ensure the distinction.

3. If congress, or any other branch of the Federal government, is not explicitly granted authority over a domain (such as taxation) under the Constitution, then the Constitution MUST be amended before congress may pass laws or delegate authority over said domain. This requires a 2/3 vote of the house, 2/3 vote of the senate, and 3/4 ratification by the states.

All of congress's gun regulations are regulated on a 51% vote which means their gun laws are illegitimate.

4) The Supreme Court's primary function, as the final arbiter of the law; the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

Interpreter, meaning to exact meaning from an otherwise unclear or uncommon tense. If a supreme court justice applies their personal interests (liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, progressive, religious, political or otherwise) to their judgments, they have not only violated their oath, but violated the public trust and their duties as a justice.

I am curious. If an ambassador to a foreign country's interpreter clearly heard, "we accept your cease fire," but translated this to "They said they'd never give up, to hell with all you American dogs", and this prompted a mass response; I assume the interpreter, as a public official with a public duty and a public oath of affirmation, would be subject to treason, correct?

Let's put it to an impartial, unbias vote right now.

America:

If a delegation of diplomats were empowered to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes, would this give these delegates the authority to steal your right to purchase a product from your local store, or the right to regulate purchases from other countries, states, or Indian tribes?

People. Put the question on Facebook, Twitter, everywhere possible. I want to know what kind of dyslexic, retarded, traitorous, treasonous (*)(*)(*)(*) up you have to be to get appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

There you go. Arrests are up 80%. Which means they are getting out of the hands of a lot of people. That is what is called progress.

 

I apologize if this has already been said. The Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of needs. The rights are a partial listing that derive from God, not from government or other men. As such we do not have to justify any of them to any man or any government.

 

Natural rights do not have to be justified - period.

 

They know sooner or later they will end up on the business end of what they are trying to get rid of. It's the way the founders wanted it because they knew one simple truth........absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Psst that means more people are trafficking in illegal guns....because it's now so valuable it's worth the risk.

Automatic weapons are popping up all over Europe, and it 's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

No apology necessary, it is the BEST argument of all. It's just that lefties think anything written on paper is EASILY changeable and they would prefer the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be "living documents" that change at the whims of the latest fashion. .

Steve

 

The .223 (cartridge the AR-15 is chambered for) is not a legal hunting weapon in most states due to it's lack of lethality compared to most commonly used deer hunting weapons. It is useless to kill anything larger than deer sized. In states, like FL, with small deer, the .223 is adequate.

You can get 5 round magazines (not clips) for the AR-15. In most states, that's the legal requirement for hunting.

There are advantages to a semi-automatic over a bolt-action, one of which is lower recoil.

 

Then please, inlighten me.

 

Why would I do that for you? I said "a minimal amount of intelligence".

 

The fact is nowhere in history confirms his claims. Be happy to be proven wrong. Here in Florida the same thing was said when shall issue was passed. As it turns out not only did that NOT happen, but crime has actually gone down. Again, feel free to prove me wrong. If someone with basic intellegence would agree with you, surely such a low hanging fruit such a as myself would be easy pickings.

 

Right to any property ownership does not require a need. Owning an AR-15 in that respect is no different than owning a computer. You don't need either one, however your right to ownership is absolute.

 

Yes, easy pickings would be the word. Here's an AR fully automatic and then semi; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSizVpfqFtw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQTFOwZnero Both are weapons that can carry out one man wars. And that is a proven fact.

And by the way, "no where in history confirms his claims" is an utterly ridiculous statement. I can't believe that you asked someone to prove that. Just because it hasn't happened in history, just means the opportunity has not yet presented itself in the manner in which he was describing. Try again!

 

The sad, but unavoidable truth is, if someone is willing to die to kill or maim a group of people, for his radical religious beliefs, or his sexual angst, or his mental defect, there is not a d*** thing you can do about it.
Whether he had a AR15, a Glock pistol, a pump shotgun, or a 22 rimfire, he would have killed a number of people. By all accounts people ran, hid, and made no attempt to fight back, EVEN AS THEY HEAR HIM CURSING A MALFUNTION AND STOPPAGE WITH HIS WEAPON. I'm not faulting them, just repeating what I heard one survivor say.
The weapon is the shiny object we direct our attention to, but the killing was a manifestation of a deranged individual.
Any weapon wielded against unarmed and unsuspecting young people results in death. Would fewer have been killed? Possibly, but not positively. If you have never seen the results of a shotgun at close range, you don't understand. By the way, a short barreled shotgun was used in Vietnam, so is it a weapon of war?
I'm talking about the legal minimum of 18 inch barrel ,just so we're clear. A Glock 9 mm has a capacity of 17 rounds, and inserting a spare loaded mag takes 2 seconds. So, the choice of firearm, even with all this uproar, is not the whole story. The FBI's failure to root this guy out has to bear at least equal blame.

As a liscensed permit holder, I would never condone carrying in a bar. Even if you're not drinking, there's always the chance someone notices your piece under your garment, and drunkenly tries to grab it.

However, here's the litmus test for those against concealed carry: If you were in a theater, school classroom, restaurant, etc., and a deranged shooter entered and opened fire, would you want someone in your group to have a legal handgun to try to defend you, or would you rather try to hide and hope he didn't get to you?

 

Thanks for linking to IV8888 I always enjoy his vids. RIP Barry.

First of all neither you or I can own the fully automatic weapon. Those are produced after 1986 and are illegal for us to have. Of course this is stupid since we can own one manufactured before 1986. This of course despite that fact that there have been 2 instances in like 80+ years of automatic weapons usage. One was a police officer for crying out loud.

Anyway, that weapon has never been carried into war because its not an M16.

The semi-automatic one is also not carried into war because again, no military uses a semi-automatic rifle.

So no, you have no facts. You're completely wrong.

 

The semi-auto was carried into the pulse night club which is a very similar gun to the AR 15. So yes, the facts speak for themselves. Whether the full is illegal or not doesn't matter. They both are very capable of starting one man wars. And as far as the semi is concerned, that has been proven. Dance around that all you like. It isn't going to change reality.

 

There is no litmus test worthy of consideration when weapons of war are put in the hands of criminals, mental patients, or whoever. Stop it with these disgusting excuses. These are weapons for one man armies. "PERIOD"! And stop it with these false handgun equivalencies you all try to pedal as excuses. If you don't have the guts to include AR15's that can hold a 30 round magazine, while trying to make the excuse for the 17 round 9mm, go find yourself another argument. No one buys the snake oil any more, so forget it.

 

No, it wouldn't. Anti-firearm people say that kind of stuff all the time. Evidently they think its better that the shooter() can calmly, deliberately take all the time he/they need(s) to shoot victims. At the Bataclan, the radical Islamic Terrorists who shot all those people calmly walked among the victims, aiming, shooting, re-loading and shooting some more. Please tell us how the carnage would have been worse if the shooters had had to engage other shooters, rather than deliberately, carefully, slowly aiming and firing at their leisure.

People in gunfights aren't really able to focus on the target that is shooting back. And if the terrorist is successfully engaged, the incident is over..

 

Except its a little bit of a hassle to get legal with an SBR. But, if you do, cool weapon, perfect for the use. And its possible to switch out uppers for other types of uses.

 

Maybe it would just be fun to shoot. Maybe it's no more than that?