Yeah, I agree. I do not see where the AR was developed as anything but a military weapon. It is incidental that AR's also turn out to be good choices for hunting, target shooting and home defense. We get all kinds of stuff from the defense industry like GPS and IR Gear.
The Centers for Disease Control report that here in the United States, on average, 3,536 people died from drowning annually from 2005 to 2014
Where's the call for pool control?
No one "needs" a pool. Or at least not at their house
You don't need those Class 3/NFA items. Turn them in now before they go on a killing spree.
Sometimes I wonder what they put in the water in Bloomington!
No civilian needs to own class 3 firearms. You can hunt and defend your home just fine with long barreled rifles and shotguns, and you don't need suppressors, machineguns, or grenade launchers.
Oh, and your Steyr AUG shares the same caliber and very similar fire rates to the rifles used at Newtown and Orlando. You should really consider destroying it as it is clearly a public danger and you should feel ashamed owning it.
Or are you more trustable with firearms than the rest of us lowly peons? "For me but not for thee"?
Oh wow. The "well-regulated militia" argument.
Did you seriously bring that up.
Do I need to find the thread, or are we going to sling it out here?
We could bring out, who is in the militia.
We could maybe look up the word "regulated" as in reference to historical definition.
Or we could hit the grammar argument about the placement of the comma, and what constitutes the parts of a sentence.
Sez you.
I would argue that the INTENT was for a "well-regulated militia" (now where did that come from??) take the place of the standing armies as they existed in Europe at that time, something the Founders did write about.
Nowhere does the 2A address the "quality" or "grade" of a weapon, as QA/QC was hit-or-miss in the days of hand-made muskets. As such, it's well within the right of Congress to restrict firearms to nothing more than a hand-made musket. That would not violate the 2nd.
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the closed-door SCOTUS debates!!! I'm sure we would have heard all of those from the various Justices!!!
Stoner's family says “Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,”.
An AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon, so I MUST assume they're talking about an M-16 which is a fully automatic weapon.
An AR15 is simply a semi-automatic ONLY rifle that looks a certain way.
Which begs the question, that I wonder how much the Stoner family members saying this actually know about firearms?
Your interpretation is incorrect. It is an individual right only in the sense that the individual belongs to a well-regulated militia. Otherwise, the first sentence of the 2nd is completely unnecessary. Madison was an astute writer, so didn't include unnecessary language (and even the "necessary" language took 13 years to be ratified by all parties).
"Whatever"? Please address the issues I raised.
Hey, folks, he actually admitted it! He doesn't trust other gun owners to be able to own firearms, therefore we should be limited in what we can own. Except him of course. He's totally trustable and shouldn't have to give up his AR-15 or his suppressors. But we should because those are for mass murderers and 1920's gangsters.Based on what I have read by some people, I would say yes. Are you suggesting that everyone on INGO is ABSOLUTELY trustworthy and will NEVER commit a crime with a firearm? Given the range of emotions (and basic stats), someone in this group WILL go off one day.
Sold it many years ago. Got out what I put into it. Not ashamed to own it, as this was well before Columbine and subsequent mass shootings. I suspect I wouldn't buy it today.
So who is the militia?
You are correct that there are restrictions on the airwaves. Same as there are restrictions on the manufacture and sale of firearms. Same as there are rules in how land and other resources are used. But could you imagine the fallout if the government shutoff all internet, tv and radio. What if all of these mediums were owned by the government?
Well, we transitioned to a standing army (and Navy) not long after the Constitution was ratified, so the question really never came up. I suspect the closest we currently have is the National Guard, each managed by the individual states.
You seem to fundamentally MIS-understand one thing. The second amendment does NOT grant individuals or "well regulated militias" the right to keep and bear arms. That right is a natural right, one of which "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
Read. The. Text. The second amendment grants nothing but it restricts what the government can do in relation to this natural right. The bulk of the amendments are restrictions on the government's action.
Also, I suspect Scalia would argue, as he did in Heller, that the 2nd does grant a right to keep and bear arms.