AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[308jake]

I already offered to pay for his wifi for a year in exchange for his AR that he can comfortably shoot but doesn't need. He's all talk.

 

[JollyMon]

The 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals just ruled that you must prove a need for concealed carry, as that right isn't guaranteed by the 2nd.

My use of the word "need" is in the context of "Why an AR when an M-1 or a 1903 Springfield will do?" You might want a 30-round mag, but what is the compelling need for one?

I "need" an AR because I have a desire to compete in three gun.

Okay, there is one need. Now my other 10 ARs are there because its my god damn right.

 

[actaeon277]

Why can't you "afford" to give up your firearms? You've already paid for them. That money is out the door. What do you lose by giving them up, except the cost of buying ammunition and such to keep shooting them.

What is your "proper compensation? $5 per firearm? $50 per fiream? I doubt you are going to get "fair market value" for them. How aobut a McDonald's or Burger King gift certificate for a happy meal?

This.
With all the firearms in this country.
Even limiting it to "military style" rifles, they're not going to give fair market value.

 

[KLB]

This.
With all the firearms in this country.
Even limiting it to "military style" rifles, they're not going to give fair market value.

Of course they would.

"They are now illegal, so they have NO value."

See how easy that is?

 

[actaeon277]

Of course they would.

"They are now illegal, so they have NO value."

See how easy that is?

Or, like full auto, your value has skyrocketed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It has been proven over and over again that "new" more restrictive gun laws do nothing more than restrict them from law abiding citizens. Until that sinks in, our misguided member will just be wanting more and more anti-gun laws when another terrorist is directed to kill, until the law abiding will have no guns. Yes, it is really that simple. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the current administration has failed to acknowledge and address the problem of home grown terrorists. The chief executive refuses even to say the term "Islamic extremist". They apparently don't put political pressure on Saudia Arabia and other countries where terrorist training flourishes. The current policy is to focus on gun control, which has been a political agenda of the chief executive since way before he became active in politics. We can only look to Mexico where guns are all but illegal, where in the period from 2007-14 there were 164,000 homicides. Whichever U.S. figures you look at, it far outpaces homicides here.

All true; However, the problem is that the misguided member is buying into the false premise that safety by way of reduction in crime and terrorism is the actual goal.

You understand this, but for those like the misguided member lacking such discernment, criminals (and terrorists) by definition disregard the law. The government has no realistic way of controlling those people. They are already lost, although they do serve a purpose useful to the government in that they are bogeymen that can be used to scare the sheep while still too few in number to threaten the power of the ivory tower crew. The restrictions under consideration are under consideration for the sole purpose of seeing to it that we have no recourse to government offenses aside from begging for mercy. Maybe he will wrap his head around this idea at some point.

 

[KLB]

Or, like full auto, your value has skyrocketed.

Those aren't illegal, just limited in supply.

 

[jamil]

All true; However, the problem is that the OP is buying into the false premise that safety by way of reduction in crime and terrorism is the actual goal.

You understand this, but for those like the OP lacking such discernment, criminals (and terrorists) by definition disregard the law. The government has no realistic way of controlling those people. They are already lost, although they do serve a purpose useful to the government in that they are bogeymen that can be used to scare the sheep while still too few in number to threaten the power of the ivory tower crew. The restrictions under consideration are under consideration for the sole purpose of seeing to it that we have no recourse to government offenses aside from begging for mercy. Maybe he will wrap his head around this idea at some point.

Technically, it's not the OP. It's someone who opined after the OP. I think. I could be wrong. Don't want to bother to check. So. Carry on.

 

[david890]

Where is "escalation of lethality" codified? Who gets to decide what inanimate object is too lethal to be possessed by men and women of this country? Is there a process for determining the maximum allowable threshold for lethality? I've read the Constitution a number of times and I simply don't recall that being a power delegated to the Feds by the states or the people.

I think that's why we have the Legislative Branch at both the state and federal levels. States can set their own limits of "what is too lethal", as can the Fed. They do it all the time with chemicals, x-ray dosages (for civilians and those working around x-rays), etc. I also see to recall something called the National Firearm Act of 1934, in which Congress decided automatic weapons were simply too lethal for the average person. They didn't ban them outright; just taxed and regulated.

ETA: will the same people that decide when the lethality threshold has been exceeded be the same ones that decide what proper compensation of our "assault weapons" will be when they're forcibly confiscated by police and/or armed forces----all equipped with fully automatic weapons?

Now, why would a government engaged in forcible confiscation go to the trouble of compensating someone? Wouldn't they just confiscate and call it done? As for "the same people", again, I think that would be the respective Congress (state or federal).

 

[david890]

Let's Make A Deal. I'll give you proper compensation if you give me your rights. What would you do If they did'nt offer you proper compensation? Would you only abide by a ban if you were properly compensated to do so?

What is the "proper compensation" for a ENTIRE RIGHT versus compensation for a SUBSET of that right? I have not argued for complete disarmament, just that an AR (in its current design) is not appropriate for most applications.

What would I do if not compensated? I suppose I, along with thousands of others, would demand an injunction to prevent any such action, then argue in court that such confiscation is illegal under the 4th Amendment. There are available actions other than violence.

 

[jamil]

What is the "proper compensation" for a ENTIRE RIGHT versus compensation for a SUBSET of that right?

I'm glad you've at least acknowledged that it's a "subset" of a right.

I have not argued for complete disarmament, just that an AR (in its current design) is not appropriate for most applications.

What would I do if not compensated? I suppose I, along with thousands of others, would demand an injunction to prevent any such action, then argue in court that such confiscation is illegal under the 4th Amendment. There are available actions other than violence.

Highly subjective. Not a valid reason to remove even a "subset" of a right. Can you find an example where subsets of other rights listed in the BoR are similarly eliminated based on reasons as subjective as that?

 

[david890]

Why does anyone NEED fertilizer that can so easily be turned into a bomb and can kill and injure hundreds?

No one "needs" fertilizer that can be turned into a bomb; the explosive nature of nitrogen-based fertilizers is inherent in the chemistry. Kinda hard to change the laws of science.

The issue, then, would be to develop an alternative fertilizer than is safe for the crops and soil, but CANNOT be turned into a bomb. There appears to be little desire for anyone to try and do that. It may be possible; it simply needs to be justifiable in terms of cost and safety. Until then, the powers that be keep watch on who buys how much fertilizer. Try and buy a few tons for your backyard garden (vs. and large, established farm) and see what happens.

 

[david890]

From your link:

[FONT=&amp][Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[/FONT]
It would seem to me that Prof. Copperud contradicts himself. First, the right shall be preserved for the sake of a militia, but then he claims the right is not dependent on the existence of a militia. Is he saying, "Yeah, it would be nice if we had a well-regulated militia, but we don't need one in order to KBA."?

IMHO, relying on an English professor and magicians in a legal debate is pretty comical. Countless counter-arguments can be found online.

 

[jamil]

No one "needs" fertilizer that can be turned into a bomb; the explosive nature of nitrogen-based fertilizers is inherent in the chemistry. Kinda hard to change the laws of science.

The issue, then, would be to develop an alternative fertilizer than is safe for the crops and soil, but CANNOT be turned into a bomb. There appears to be little desire for anyone to try and do that. It may be possible; it simply needs to be justifiable in terms of cost and safety. Until then, the powers that be keep watch on who buys how much fertilizer. Try and buy a few tons for your backyard garden (vs. and large, established farm) and see what happens.

Given the empirical data, there appears to be little desire for anyone to use detachable magazine fed semi-automatic rifles that fire intermediate to high power rounds. Millions of Americans own such rifles, yet all rilfes account for <300 deaths. It appears that we do find more uses for our ARs that don't involve murdering people.

 

[jamil]

No one "needs" fertilizer that can be turned into a bomb; the explosive nature of nitrogen-based fertilizers is inherent in the chemistry. Kinda hard to change the laws of science.

The issue, then, would be to develop an alternative fertilizer than is safe for the crops and soil, but CANNOT be turned into a bomb. There appears to be little desire for anyone to try and do that. It may be possible; it simply needs to be justifiable in terms of cost and safety. Until then, the powers that be keep watch on who buys how much fertilizer. Try and buy a few tons for your backyard garden (vs. and large, established farm) and see what happens.

So your solution is to ban anything that no one "needs" that could potentially be used to harm people. Is that what you're saying? Who decides need? Many people have asked. You've not really given an answer for that. Do you get to decide? Does the media get to decide by building straw monsters of the things they don't like to get people to agree?

 

[Mark-DuCo]

Given the empirical data, there appears to be little desire for anyone to use detachable magazine fed semi-automatic rifles that fire intermediate to high power rounds. Millions of Americans own such rifles, yet all rilfes account for <300 deaths. It appears that we do find more uses for our ARs that don't involve murdering people.

So far mine has only murdered paper, some steel, and a few watermelons with the aid of tannerite.

 

[david890]

So YOU need an AR. Ok.

Again, what I "need" is the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of the AR. Specifically, the INLINE BARREL, BCG and BUFFER ASSEMBLY. Nowhere - NOWHERE - have I argued that I - and only I - "need" a hi-cap mag along with those fundamental design features.

Do not put words into my mouth.

 

[JollyMon]

Again, what I "need" is the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of the AR. Specifically, the INLINE BARREL, BCG and BUFFER ASSEMBLY. Nowhere - NOWHERE - have I argued that I - and only I - "need" a hi-cap mag along with those fundamental design features.

Do not put words into my mouth.

Why Do You Need Those Fundamental Designs? Wont other firearms fit the bill. Until you get rid of yours... you are still a hypocrite

 

[jamil]

From your link:

[FONT=&amp][Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[/FONT]
It would seem to me that Prof. Copperud contradicts himself. First, the right shall be preserved for the sake of a militia, but then he claims the right is not dependent on the existence of a militia. Is he saying, "Yeah, it would be nice if we had a well-regulated militia, but we don't need one in order to KBA."?

IMHO, relying on an English professor and magicians in a legal debate is pretty comical. Countless counter-arguments can be found online.

Why do you discount a unidirectional dependency? It's reasonable to say that a militia comprising the people, requires the right to KBA. However, the right to KBA does not require a militia. Mentioning the militia doesn't imply that maintaining a militia is the only legitimate reason to KBA.

 

[david890]

No, they probably assumed more like one (or more) firearm for EVERY American!

Why yes, Boston and Philadelphia of 1776 were just chock full of armed citizens, carrying their muskets everywhere (and pistols concealed in pantaloons)!!!