AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[BugI02]

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.

I would have to disagree. The muskets of the day were state of the art. Many people also had 'handguns' and personal edged weapons. The amendment references 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms​' without specifying type, quantity or capabilities.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Except for CAPACITY AND SPEED OF RELOADING, which are the primary issues concerning the AR.

Do you think there is something new about an AR-15? It is no different than it was in 1957.

What you have described is an ESCALATION IN LETHALITY from 100 years ago to the present, a goal of the DESIGNERS OF MILITARY WEAPONS.

And so? The 1911 and Glock pistol and Smith & Wesson revolver are military weapons.

There is nothing new about an AR-15, a SCAR, an AUG what have you.

The Winchester Model 70 is essentially the same firearm as when it was first designed, as it was perfectly fine for hunting then as it is now.

The Winchester M70 is a military weapon. A reworked Mauser rifle used by the military: https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/3/21/the-military-model-70/

Winchester M70, a deadly, lethal military weapon.

Do we really need to continue that escalation (e.g., a 100-round drum mag for the AR)?

You keep using that word and I don't think you understand what it means.

Large magazines for weapons have been around for hundreds of years. There is nothing "more lethal" of the AR-15 of 2016 than the AR-15 of 1957.

But do we need hi-power, hi-cal ARs around the home?

What does need have to do with a Constitutional right?

I don't need Islam. Is it OK to ban it?

Is there not another firearm with which you can defend yourself?

You have other religions, so it must be OK to ban some then, right?

 

[david890]

Well, time to go home for tonight (I can't afford Internet at home).

Again, please consider the issue of ESCALATION OF LETHALITY when it comes to firearms and the current debate. Yes, a small minority would want to ban all firearms, while a small minority would allow anything and everything. Neither position is tenable.

My father's father owned only a 5-shot S&W .32 revolver, and I never saw it until after he died. I don't think my mother's father ever owned a gun (being a Quaker might have been an issue).

My best friend's father while going up had been Army Infantry in the Pacific, and had brought a Japanese Type 99 home as a trophy, but I never saw him handle a weapon. I don't he even owned one.

I like to shoot, but I don't hunt. I certainly see the need to hunt, as deer populations can become a problem (I often see 2-3 on my exercise walks in the middle of Bloomington).

I own several ARs for target shooting, but do I NEED an AR to target shoot? No. I could use a .22LR for that. Probably better for my hearing, but then I use suppressors on my ARs.

Would I be upset to give up my ARs? Only if not properly compensated, as I have $$$ invested in them. I would like something else to shoot, but it could be a bolt-action .22LR; I can't see much beyond 100 yards at this point.

I would like SOMEPLACE to shoot; that should be as much of a right as RTKBA. I understand the noise issue, but then I have to put up with the Bloomington Speedway every Friday night (and they often run to midnight!! Ugh!!)

Accommodations, folks. It's part of living in a society.

 

[actaeon277]

Freedom from mass shootings.
Freedom from over-penetration.
Freedom from shootings by toddlers.
Freedom from in-discriminant drive-bys.

And how do we grant that?

By the way, those things are mostly NOT done by ARs and AKs. They are actually done with the guns you have no problem possessing.

 

[david890]

BTW, when I called you a "token gun owner" upthread, I said that in the context of you being the rare gun owner who will stand with the anti-gun lobby and passionately espouse their stuff. Their gun owner that they can point to and say "see gun owners support our agenda"

I'm not with the anti-gun lobby; I do not support their agenda. I am not a member of the NRA; I do not support their agenda. IMHO, both have become extremist organizations. I seek a middle ground.

 

[308jake]

Sell one of your ARs and you too can have internet at home. Another idea is for you to give me one of your ARs and I will pay for one year of dial up service for you. Nobody needs hi speed wifi when dial up will suffice.

 

[actaeon277]

Yup. People keep seeking that middle ground.
Except the ground keeps rolling back. There is no middle ground.
Anti-gunners will just keep taking the next thing.
Look at the history.
Each time was, "Just work with us.", "All we want is this, no more.", "We don't want all your guns."

 

[david890]

I would have to disagree. The muskets of the day were state of the art. Many people also had 'handguns' and personal edged weapons. The amendment references 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms​' without specifying type, quantity or capabilities.

"State of the art" and "hand-made" are different issues. A Clovis arrowhead was "state of the art" at the time. I'm speaking more in terms of commonality and interchangeability of parts. Easy for an AR; hard for Daniel Boone's musket.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Accommodations, folks. It's part of living in a society.

Appeasement is throwing your fellow citizens to the crocodile in hopes that the crocodile eats you last.

Why do I have to accommodation my rights to anyone. What books need I give up? Which religions do you give up?

The purpose of a Bill of Rights is so that I do not need to accommodate. Society accommodates to my rights, not vice versa.

F**k accommodation. I want my rights back.

 

[david890]

There is no middle ground.

The very position of ISIS and "radical Muslim extremists". Islam or nothing.

So, how is the "no middle ground" for the 2A folks different? There's really no middle ground whatsoever? There's NOTHING on which we can agree??

 

[BugI02]

First, it is well within the right of Congress to restrict the airwaves. Those were not conceived in the 18th century (nor was the automatic rifle). Go ahead and broadcast on the the AM or FM band, but don't be surprised if the FCC comes knocking. You wanna broadcast? Get a license and use the proper (i.e., "Legal") frequencies.

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).

Now, I have no doubt the Founders understood that many people would own firearms to feed their families and defend themselves, but I doubt they ever imagined 1 firearm for every 3 Americans, as exists today, nor could they imagine the power and capacity of such firearms.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes


Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)


US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Please pay close attention when you read. 311a limits the need to be a member of the National Guard only to females
311b2 makes this clear that all able bodied men within the limits of (a) are at the least part of the unorganized militia

 

[david890]

F**k accommodation. I want my rights back.

What have you lost??? What can you NOT do now that you could 5 years ago? 10 years? 25 years?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm speaking more in terms of commonality and interchangeability of parts. Easy for an AR; hard for Daniel Boone's musket.

Tell us who Eli Whitney is and what he did as to muskets.

 

[KG1]

And how do we grant that?

By the way, those things are mostly NOT done by ARs and AKs. They are actually done with the guns you have no problem possessing.

Very good point. You know how we deal with those then right? Limit capacity.

 

[david890]

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes


Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)


US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Please pay close attention when you read. 311a limits the need to be a member of the National Guard only to females
311b2 makes this clear that all able bodied men within the limits of (a) are at the least part of the unorganized militia

So, being in my mid-50s, I'm no longer able to be in a militia? I suspect many INGO members would take offense to that. How come they aren't demanding a change of that to "anyone who can KBA"? I mean, if the SHTF, I'm gonna load up and take aim...

 

[Rookie]

F**k accommodation. I want my rights back.

Best thing Kirk has ever said.

 

[Rookie]

What have you lost??? What can you NOT do now that you could 5 years ago? 10 years? 25 years?

Something happened in 1986...

 

[NightFisher]

I have loved every post on this thread. You guys rock.

 

[david890]

Very good point. You know how we deal with those then right? Limit capacity.

At no time have I said I have no problem with other guns. I used to own an FN 5-7, and that's a pretty deadly pistol, much more so that the .32 S&W my grandfather owned. Again, it's an issue of CAPACITY AND SPEED OF LOADING. I'm sure the folks at FN had ESCALATION OF LETHALITY in mind when they designed it. But does the average person need an FN5-7 around the home, if anywhere?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, being in my mid-50s, I'm no longer able to be in a militia? I suspect many INGO members would take offense to that. How come they aren't demanding a change of that to "anyone who can KBA"? I mean, if the SHTF, I'm gonna load up and take aim...

Article XII, §1. IND. CONST.