New Republican bill would make the AR-15 the ‘national gun’

and right now, the highest judges of the land have issued rulings that pretty clearly make banning AR 15s unconstitutional

 

I'm glad they finally figured out their priorities. /sarcasm.

 

That's not what you the study you quoted said... "any other object associated with aggression" is what the study said. It would be up to the 'associating' individual, would it not?

It sounds like you're just making **** up for convenience now... as logic would dictate that in order to adequately address the 'weapons effect', obviously 'any object' an individual might associate with aggression would need to be banned, lest the association cause them to become violent.

...which is, of course, is completely impossible, and just banning guns would never have a meaningful effect on a public driven to violence by the 'weapons effect'...

 

sure beats all the energy democrats put into pushing obviously ineffective (as crime control) and unconstitutional gun laws just because they have a hard on for lawful gun owners-especially those of us who vote against gun banning liberals.

 

But.....democrats........biden

Naming AR15 the "national gun" beats nothing, except maybe the dumbest bill trophy ever. It doesn't even try to resolve any actual issues.

 

I am not defending it-just pointing out that what the Democrats do is more stupid. Now I do think that the government should fund public firing ranges to allow honest civilians to practice with AR 15s or recently declared obsolete M16 rifles with too old to issue to front line troops-M193 ball ammo.

 

AR-15 is a joke as "America's gun". Hell, the Remington 870 is a far more ubiquitous firearm - and has a far longer history.

The Henry .30-.30 has a far more historic place in American history and is still a great rifle made in the USA.

Friggin' Russian trolls trying to make the AR-15 "America's gun" are sick morons without any sense of history.

 

It is you who is promoting a myth, that "gun banners" pretend that they can stop people from killing, if that is what you are saying (it's not completely clear). The goal is just to reduce the killing, as much as is practicable. That banned firearms would be more difficult to attain, is self-evident. Making something more difficult, is going to have a deterrent effect. I think that is also an accepted fact. It won't stop them all, but a lot of these mass shooters are not professional soldiers, or hardcore terrorists-- they're often just people who are upset and/or depressed, at how their life is going. And I do believe, if you throw up more obstacles in front of this sort of person, you make it harder for them, they will often not rise above it, to succeed, despite adversity (or if they did, many would probably not have come to the point, at which they just want to end their lives, taking out a bunch of other people, with them). Does that not make sense, to you?

 

There are around 20 million AR-15s floating around the US. About 11 million 870s have been manufactured total.

The 870 was first offered for sale in 1950, the AR-15 saw the first sales to the public in 1964.

Sure, Henry rifles are iconic. For sure.

Passing legislation to make any gun the “national gun” is ridiculous. However, if it keeps the Congress-critters too busy to pursue other legislation we are likely better off in the long run.

 

LOL-- in what lawbook, will I find this concept of what is made "pretty clear," by rulings on some legal issues, applying to other, generally related ones? Unless this particular Court has ruled on the banning of assault weapons-- and I'm pretty sure they haven't-- you are only speculating. Just one more opinion.

If you'd wanted to make your opinion stand out, as seeming more credibly correct, you would detail the specific SCOTUS rulings, that you feel imply that an assault weapon ban would also be found to be unconstitutional, by this particular personnel. I'm not saying you are wrong; but I don't think that can be known, for certain, especially with all the fairly new faces on the Court. Your citing cases that would have a lot in common with an assault weapon ban, that have been ruled upon by these jurists, would certainly help clarify to my mind, where some members stand (though I do suspect all of Trump's picks to have been cleared, and possibly funded, by the gun lobby). Still, I will reserve final judgement, until I see how they rule.

 

Where is an AR ban pending? “I” voted for redrawn districts; for more reasons than this. It Is a silly idea and, political stunt that does the right to own firearms a lot of damage and almost no good. It riles up anti-gun advocates but only gets a huh-ra out of folks radically in favor of gun rights while everyone else with two brain cells to rub together just roll their eyes.

 

are AR 15s in common use for lawful purposes?

do you claim they are UNUSUALLY dangerous compared to other commonly used firearms

You have your answer

any ruling that allows the banning of any such firearm would be contrary to the second amendment's proper reading and intent

 

I and, more importantly, legislators, as well as State Attorney Generals, would contend that ARs are "unusually dangerous," so that argument of yours, is not a successful one.

Secondly, I'll repeat that your own reading of the Second Amendment is not an authoritative one; my comment, to which you'd replied, in fact, had been that the only opinions that matter, for the practical considerations of this thread, are judicial ones. I'll note the judges have absolutely not accepted the argument that you make, that essentially no restrictions on guns can be constitutional; I have even read a quote by former Justice Scalia, acknowledging that fact. So that would be strike two, for your argument.

I will, however tentatively give you something, which you did not go out & earn yourself, when I suggested that you cite gun cases, on which our current members of the SCOTUS have ruled. I have since heard that, as you'd depicted, this Court is supposedly, extremely defensive of gun rights, which would then make them more likely to overrule any potential bans on assault weapons. There are, though, two caveats to my acknowledgement.

One caveat, is that just because a majority of this particular group of Justices may read the 2nd Amendment to your liking, does not make their reading "right." That is to say, it does not by any means insure that a change in personnel on the Court, would not lead to a different, future reading; one effect of the current SCOTUS' interventionist, and revisionist tack, is that their own "precedents" will likely not be regarded as inviolable, as had the long established precedents, which they have overturned (and probably will continue overturning).

The other caveat is, you will have to take my conceding you this point, with a healthy dose of salt, because I had heard this assessment of the Court, from the MSM, and you know how unreliable, you think they are.

 

what makes an AR 15 UNUSUALLY dangerous compared to say the 5 hundred thousand MI carbines that the US government sold to private citizens? Scalia, joining a dissent (when the court refused to take up a state ban back when Kennedy was still on the court), agreed that semi auto rifles meet the heller test

what do you think the second amendment means. and I like this comment from a British journalist over 100 years ago

No matter what happens
what we have got
is the Maxim gun and they have not

 

Henry didn't invent the 30-30. Winchester did.

The original Henry Rifle was chambered in .44 Henry Rimfire.

Speaking of a sense of history...lol

 

No I don't want that to the assault weapons ban. The gun band that banned no gun ever manufactured.

But Democrats are notorious for boneheaded gun legislation I don't know what they're talking about or their purposefully being terrible at it I'm leaning more toward the latter.

 

In the 70 years they were manufacturing the Remington 870 there are 11 million sold AR-15s are at 17 million so no.

The AR-15 is America's rifle. You can make case for Remington model 700.

I would say a Winchester repeater would be more likely to be America's rifle than a Henry. Is there a more common.

Though I agree with you Henry's are very nice to shoot. I've been eyeballing a .222

 

The irony meter pegged out...lol

 

That had been the idea-- I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

Nonsense.
A federal ban on 'assault weapons' - that will not happen in the current congressional term - will only hasten said ban being struck by the USSC.
How do you not know this?

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

In 2022, AR15s were used in 8 of 636 mass shootings.
In 2022, AR15s were used to kill 54 of the 660 people killed in mas shootings.

20,000,000 AR15s in the US; in 2022, 8 were used to murder 54 people.

How does this, in your mind, demonstrate the necessity for a ban on AR15s?

 

So... basing it on a post hoc fallacy.

((((Sigh))) once again I find myself having to explain correlation does not prove causation.

How do you not know the 1994 ban did nothing to reduce availability of 'assault weapons' and therefore could not have had the effect you claim?

 

you are dealing with a faith based argument. It's akin to arguing whether God exists

 

and people laugh when some suggest there is an international conspiracy to disarm Americans