"Don't be silky. No one is coming for your guns!"

Because FDR couldn't get handguns banned like he wanted. They were not used in mass murders of civilians, and neither were short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns or silencers.

Do you think that machine guns were banned because of the actions of gangsters like John Dillinger, Clyde Barrow and Machine Gun Kelly?

 

It is, when applied to a firearm in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
You cannot constitutionally add the AR15 to the NFA list any more than you can add the 1911A1.

 

and you can't add marijuana to the schedule one substance list because it has valid medical purposes - yet there it is

people should be able to worship the Stoner God

who decides "traditionally legal purposes"

 

Congress, so far:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 found that legitimate uses of firearms included “…hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”.

Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms:

1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/
2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news
3. Practice – for long distance or competition
4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame.
5. Varmint hunting - https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/1/10/best-ar-15-calibers-for-predator-hunting/
6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting
7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/

 

then why were machine guns restricted?

I am not saying technically your not right, I am saying the precedent has already been set that some guns can have restrictions

 

Because 1934 was earlier than 2008.

 

ok - I did not realize the constitution changed based on the dates

 

FDR didn't care about the Constitution. See Wickard v Filburn, Korematsu v. United States, Hirabayashi v. United States and Yasui v. United States

We didn't get protection until 2008.

 

the constitution overrides all laws, it would have been reversed by the SC if unconstitutional

 

Which is why NFA won't likely be overturned as a long standing prohibition (see Scalia in Heller and Kavanaugh in Heller II), but it's also why AR-15s can't be restricted under NFA 1934.


“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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200, and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "
Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

Given that SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald), how do you propose to Constitutionally ban AR-15s and the like?

 

any law can be passed, then up to the courts from there

personally I do not think abortion or ar-15's will be banned, cause both sides get lots of donations for these fights

 

True, but it seems obvious that AR-15s are bearable arms in common use and thus protected by the Second Amendment, and all of the arguments used to support sate level bans are spurious.

What would you write in an amicus brief to SCOTUS to support a ban on AR-15s?

 

This is one reason why Donald Trump got elected.

 

so are machine guns

 

They are already subject to a long-standing ban; AR-15s are not, so you're starting from scratch.

 

cause he likes to take guns first, due process second?

 

So he could nominate conservatives to the Court.

 

the GOP changing the votes to 50 for SC judges allowed that, when dems add seats and seat new judge with 50, they will undo that

 

Which is why stare decisis is so important now.

 

The Democrats started the simple majority vote.

 

the republicans did it for SC judges

 

See post #29.

 

True; the Democrats did it for lower court judges and executive branch nominations, and the Republicans just to it to the logical conclusion.

 

Guns that are not in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
AR15s are.
You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or the efficacy of, adding the AR15 to the NFA list -- as such, doing so violates the constitution.

 

Ah. You are unaware of 2A jurisprudence.
This explains a lot.