An honest question on assault rifles.

Taichiliberal said:
But here's the thing; the basic defense people put forth for AR-15 (style) ownership is either "self defense" or "hunting". Well, all that you've mentioned can kill ya just as dead as an AR-15 in a home invasion, and no hunter I know of worth his salt wants to pepper the carcass with holes, whether he's going to eat it or not. I always remember the father of a friend of mine who was a duck hunter. The man was EXTREMELY careful with his weapon, because as he explained to me "The ammo is geared to take down a duck flying above you...imagine what that would do to a man less than 10 yards away. May not kill him, but he won't be happy!"
Click to expand...
You're always supposed to be extremely careful with any firearm. Just because you can "pepper the carcass with holes" doesn't mean you're going to. But there are times when you want a quick second shot. And the 5.56 NATO round is perfectly adequate for a lot of hunting, for animals smaller than deer.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So if a guy has a registered machine gun pre-1968, he can sell it.....depending on what hoops they have to jump through in each State. That is NOT the same as availability at your local gun shop, but technically you're right.....very narrowly too, given how many of those actually exists.

You can "prefer" anything....give me a reason why, as you have an adequate number of hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns that'll get the job done just as (if not more) efficiently. THAT is the question.
Click to expand...
So, what, there should only be one model of handgun, shotgun and rifle available to civilians?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
lets posit a question.....Since the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the citizenry the ability to withstand and put down an oppressive federal government, how is it 'logical' for a court, any court, to say that it doesn't protect 'assault' weapons? Does the court believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment with the idea that the citizenry could only use pitchforks and torches? or rocks? bows and arrows?
Click to expand...

^^^
Not interested in the opinion of an anonymous rightwing poster who believes he has a God given right to assault rifles in preparation for the overthrow of the duly elected U.S. government.

The opinions of courts of law carry greater weight with me than internet Rambos.
The opinions of legal experts, Federal judges no less, have repeatedly found that there is no constitutional right to AR15 or any assault rifle. None. Nada. Zilch.

Once you give up your fantasies of playing Rambo, and having fire fights with the National Guard in an attempt to overthrow our government, you will realize that you can still own all the pistols, hunting rifles, vintage surplus rifles, shotguns, and traditional semi-automatics you want. As for me, I might have my eye out for a vintage British Lee-Enfield!

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons?... Four courts have said no.

Four times in the past decade, federal appeals courts have ruled that assault weapons bans are constitutional.

In fact, no federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons are protected by the Second amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...said-no/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.577c9f449ec5
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
^^^
Not interested in the opinion of an anonymous rightwing poster who believes he has a God given right to assault rifles in preparation for the overthrow of the duly elected U.S. government.

The opinions of courts of law carry greater weight with me than internet Rambos.
The opinions of legal experts, Federal judges no less, have repeatedly found that there is no constitutional right to AR15 or any assault rifle. None. Nada. Zilch.

Once you give up your fantasies of playing Rambo, and having fire fights with the National Guard in an attempt to overthrow our government, you will realize that you can still own all the pistols, hunting rifles, vintage surplus rifles, shotguns, and traditional semi-automatics you want. As for me, I might have my eye out for a vintage British Lee-Enfield!
Click to expand...

so the US Constitution that was written and ratified by the people with it's intention of restricting the federal government to the few prescribed powers written in the constitution is now to be 'interpreted' by that same government over the intent of the people.......and YOU are such the government worshipping slave that you'll accept a courts ruling that restricts the rights of the people and increases the power of the government?

well, i'm no longer interested in the opinion of an idiot left winger who worships the state.

I have AR15s and I will not surrender them. come and take them
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so the US Constitution that was written and ratified by the people with it's intention of restricting the federal government to the few prescribed powers written in the constitution is now to be 'interpreted' by that same government over the intent of the people.......and YOU are such the government worshipping slave that you'll accept a courts ruling that restricts the rights of the people and increases the power of the government?

well, i'm no longer interested in the opinion of an idiot left winger who worships the state.

I have AR15s and I will not surrender them. come and take them
Click to expand...

Nope, you have no absolute right to an AR 15. None

That is not my opinion....it is the opinion of U.S. federal courts.

Red Dawn is a preposterous Hollywood movie. Not a real thing. You are not going to be battling it out with invading Russians and Cubans, and I wouldn't even trust you to roam the country side taking pot shots at people you perceive to be the enemy. That is just fucking dangerous for the rest of us.

Not interested in indulging rightwing "what ifs?", "maybe", "perhaps" hypothetical-fantasy scenarios, but if we ever live under a totalitarian system, it is going to be overthrown the same way is was overthrown in East Germany, in Romania, in Tunisia, In Ukraine, in Serbia, in India, in Russia, in Poland, et. al..... by civil disobedience, mass protest, and largely non-violent popular uprising. Your pea shooter will not be needed, will not make any substantive difference, and would probably make things worse for everyone.

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons?... Four courts have said no.

Four times in the past decade, federal appeals courts have ruled that assault weapons bans are constitutional.

In fact, no federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons are protected by the Second amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...said-no/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.577c9f449ec5
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Nope, you have no absolute right to an AR 15. None

That is not my opinion....it is the opinion of U.S. federal courts.
Click to expand...
they are wrong, we will defy them.

Cypress said:
Red Dawn is a preposterous Hollywood movie. Not a real thing. You are not going to be battling it out with invading Russians and Cubans, and I wouldn't even trust you to roam the country side taking pot shots at people you perceive to be the enemy. That is just fucking dangerous for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
this is your projection of your own insecurities and inadequacies. it's why you didn't enlist in the military. I wouldn't trust a coward at my side, so i'm not concerned in the least that you don't trust me and am glad as hell you consider me dangerous.

Cypress said:
Not interested in indulging rightwing "what ifs?", "maybe", "perhaps" hypothetical-fantasy scenarios, but if we ever live under a totalitarian system, it is going to be overthrown the same way is was overthrown in East Germany, in Romania, in Tunisia, In Ukraine, in Serbia, in India, in Russia, in Poland, et. al..... by civil disobedience, mass protest, and largely non-violent popular uprising. Your pea shooter will not be needed, will not make any substantive difference, and would probably make things worse for everyone.
Click to expand...
since you don't care to remember history, hopefully you will be doomed to relive it by being part of the first group murdered by your government.

remember, 20 million civilians have been killed by their government, after having first been disarmed.
 
Cypress said:
Nope, you have no absolute right to an AR 15. None

That is not my opinion....it is the opinion of U.S. federal courts.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the ruling was not about the Constitution but Massachusetts right to ban such weapons.

"Young later summarized his decision by hinting that if residents living in Democrat-dominated states like Massachusetts are fed up with strict gun laws, they should move elsewhere.
“Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives,” he wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines.
“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

http://newbostonpost.com/2018/04/06...ent-does-not-cover-ar-15s-high-capacity-mags/

Sorry pal the 2nd amendment does protect the rights of AR-15 owners.
 
Cypress said:
Nope, you have no absolute right to an AR 15. None

That is not my opinion....it is the opinion of U.S. federal courts.

Red Dawn is a preposterous Hollywood movie. Not a real thing. You are not going to be battling it out with invading Russians and Cubans, and I wouldn't even trust you to roam the country side taking pot shots at people you perceive to be the enemy. That is just fucking dangerous for the rest of us.

Not interested in indulging rightwing "what ifs?", "maybe", "perhaps" hypothetical-fantasy scenarios, but if we ever live under a totalitarian system, it is going to be overthrown the same way is was overthrown in East Germany, in Romania, in Tunisia, In Ukraine, in Serbia, in India, in Russia, in Poland, et. al..... by civil disobedience, mass protest, and largely non-violent popular uprising. Your pea shooter will not be needed, will not make any substantive difference, and would probably make things worse for everyone.
Click to expand...

Who gives a fuck about Red Dawn? How was tyranny overthrown in America, and what did the authors of the Constitution believe about the right to possess arms?
 
Cypress said:
Nope, you have no absolute right to an AR 15. None

That is not my opinion....it is the opinion of U.S. federal courts.
Click to expand...

The United States Supreme Court says otherwise, and last I checked, they preside over all federal courts, wouldn't you agree?

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

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016 PER CURIAM.

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 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,”
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010)
 
BodyDouble said:
Is sitting in the back of the bus going to get you to your destination any faster or slower? Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit in front of the bus. But, in a free society, there is no requirement to show "need" in order to exercise a right.
Click to expand...

Yup, there's no need at all for one.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Because they DO, genius! That is a matter of fact and history. Your problem is that you think the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche to have any type/caliber weapon you want for private citizen ownership/use. It never fully did, as the evolution of militias in America and gun regulation shows.

As the old song lyric goes, 'you can't always get what you want. But if you try real hard, you just might find, you get what you need".

Now, why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".
Click to expand...

Again, up until the Civil War, there were no restrictions on what weapons you could have or where you could carry them. You could even own cannon.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Wrong as usual. You can repeat yourself ad nausea...doesn't change the history of this weapon...and folk like you got their wish and put this back on the market...the retailers advertised it's efficiency, and people bought it on that salesmanship...as did the perpetrators of recent mass shootings. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

The history of the weapon contradicts your paranoia. The AR-15 is a civilian, semi-auto only version of the original. It is not the original AR-15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top