"You don't need an AR15..."

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

only if someone is so dishonest that they can claim that a semi auto rifle is both uncommon and unusually dangerous

and since our own government has sold a million or so such type rifles to civilians that's gonna be an argument that fails

Ironically, your blathering is dishonest, you moved the goalposts from AR15 to "a semi auto rifle".

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Why not?

It is an indiscriminate weapon that may be appropriate for open warfare but not for keeping the peace.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Is it an arm. Yes. The second says the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There can be no other conclusion, banning the AR15 is 100% unconstitutional. Period.

So are grenade launchers and M16s, those are arms, yet their ban withstood constitutional scrutiny.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Ironically, your blathering is dishonest, you moved the goalposts from AR15 to "a semi auto rifle".

Huh? an AR-15 IS a semi-auto rifle. Same exact goal post.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

So are grenade launchers and M16s, those are arms, yet their ban withstood constitutional scrutiny.

Unconstitutionally. The SC violated its oath. Your point?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Ironically, your blathering is dishonest, you moved the goalposts from AR15 to "a semi auto rifle".

well how do you ban one semi auto rifle that has the same features as another

Of course since you don't understand it, you make such ignorant comments

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Ironically, your blathering is dishonest, you moved the goalposts from AR15 to "a semi auto rifle".

They are the same thing and you not knowing shows your ignorance of guns.

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

It is an indiscriminate weapon that may be appropriate for open warfare but not for keeping the peace.

Wrong, they are no different from any other firearm they do what their operator tells them to do. More ignorance of the situation and what LEO's come face to face with.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Huh? an AR-15 IS a semi-auto rifle. Same exact goal post.

well how do you ban one semi auto rifle that has the same features as another

Of course since you don't understand it, you make such ignorant comments

"A semi auto rifle" and "an AR15" are not synonymous. That's a rhetorical ploy. Your dishonest statement implies that any semi auto rifle would be banned. That's why it's dishonest.

But you already know that.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Unconstitutionally. The SC violated its oath. Your point?

That's your opinion. I'll stick with the constitution, the supreme court, and a century of precedence.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

They are the same thing and you not knowing shows your ignorance of guns.

Lol you think that all semi auto rifles are AR15s, and you think i'm ignorant on guns ?!?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Wrong, they are no different from any other firearm they do what their operator tells them to do. More ignorance of the situation and what LEO's come face to face with.

That could be the stupidest explanation i've ever heard.

Of course, a nuclear weapon does what "their operator tells them to do" (i don't know if you think they're voice activated or something but grenade launchers are generally not).

 

[humbolt]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Lol you think that all semi auto rifles are AR15s, and you think i'm ignorant on guns ?!?

Given your vast knowledge on the subject, perhaps you can tell us all what exclusive feature and AR has that differentiates it from all other semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Goshin]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

The right to vote means what we agree that it means, just like the right to bear arms. We have a very procedural method of collaborating on how the constitution and the laws are to be interpreted.

Congratulations, you have utterly failed to understand and appreciate the purpose of the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular.

You are asserting, in essence, that the collective "will of the people" can re-interpret any enumerated Right to mean whatever the majority wants it to mean.

That gives the majority the power to essentially destroy that right, though it would be spin-doctored to sound much more reasonable of course. :roll:


The main purpose of the Constitution in general and the BoR in particular, is to limit government, even AGAINST the whim of the majority. The Founders rightly feared the "tyranny of the majority" and structured the government to minimize the impact of same, to make it much harder for the 51% to use the government to oppress the 49%.

The BoR is primarily a list of "shall NOTS" for the federal government, and some against the States as well. Even if the majority want it.


That is why it is so hard to amend the Constitution, and why the far-left has decided to "re-interpret" same through means of dubious legality as an easier path.


It does not wash, though. The CN and BoR were supposed to be the stone dam on the river, preventing government from flooding away the people's rights, not easily changed or re-interpreted despite what a simple majority might think.

 

[Goshin]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

It is an indiscriminate weapon that may be appropriate for open warfare but not for keeping the peace.

No it isn't. It fires one shot per trigger pull and is quite accurate. It is, in fact, less "indiscriminate" than a double-barrel shotgun.



You are confusing AR15's with full-auto-only weapons.

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Lol you think that all semi auto rifles are AR15s, and you think i'm ignorant on guns ?!?

Yes, you are ignorant on the subject, wrap you brain around the following:
All AR's are semiautomatic rifles.
AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, the original designers of the AR15.
AR15's are Not Assault Rifles
AR's account for only a tiny portion of shootings hence banning them is ludicrous.

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

That could be the stupidest explanation i've ever heard.

Of course, a nuclear weapon does what "their operator tells them to do" (i don't know if you think they're voice activated or something but grenade launchers are generally not).

To someone that seems to know nothing about firearms I am sure it would be stupid. Lesson 2.:
Firearms do not indiscriminately do anything, they are inanimate objects and it takes a person to operate them, meaning they shoot when and where the operator choses.

When you run out of things to add, throw in nukes, me thinks you are finished here...............

 

[blaxshep]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

"A semi auto rifle" and "an AR15" are not synonymous. That's a rhetorical ploy. Your dishonest statement implies that any semi auto rifle would be banned. That's why it's dishonest.

An AR-15 IS a semi-auto rifle, so no, they are not synonymous. That is like saying a clot 45 is not a hand gun. You are the one that is either completely ignorant or dishonest.

An AR-15 fires one round every time you pull the trigger, no more, no less, that is the definition of a semi-automatic rifle.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

"A semi auto rifle" and "an AR15" are not synonymous. That's a rhetorical ploy. Your dishonest statement implies that any semi auto rifle would be banned. That's why it's dishonest.

But you already know that.

so tell me-how do you write a law that would withstand the courts that bans AR-15s but not other center fire semi auto rifles that use a detachable magazine?

You continue to prove you haven't a clue about the terms that one has to understand to intelligently discuss this issue

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Congratulations, you have utterly failed to understand and appreciate the purpose of the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular.

You are asserting, in essence, that the collective "will of the people" can re-interpret any enumerated Right to mean whatever the majority wants it to mean.

That gives the majority the power to essentially destroy that right, though it would be spin-doctored to sound much more reasonable of course. :roll:


The main purpose of the Constitution in general and the BoR in particular, is to limit government, even AGAINST the whim of the majority. The Founders rightly feared the "tyranny of the majority" and structured the government to minimize the impact of same, to make it much harder for the 51% to use the government to oppress the 49%.

The BoR is primarily a list of "shall NOTS" for the federal government, and some against the States as well. Even if the majority want it.


That is why it is so hard to amend the Constitution, and why the far-left has decided to "re-interpret" same through means of dubious legality as an easier path.


It does not wash, though. The CN and BoR were supposed to be the stone dam on the river, preventing government from flooding away the people's rights, not easily changed or re-interpreted despite what a simple majority might think.

I didn't say that the will of the people redefine the constitution, rather; i am deferring to the judicial branch, in particular the supreme court.

I don't think the founders were concerned that the BoR would be the only safeguard for our freedoms.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

No it isn't. It fires one shot per trigger pull and is quite accurate. It is, in fact, less "indiscriminate" than a double-barrel shotgun.



You are confusing AR15's with full-auto-only weapons.

You're confusing AR15s with grenade launchers (what i was referring to).

 

[blaxshep]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

I don't think the founders were concerned that the BoR would be the only safeguard for our freedoms.

No, they weren't that's because they also never granted the Fed the power to regulate firearms. That is NOT an enumerated power.

 

[BretJ]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

"A semi auto rifle" and "an AR15" are not synonymous. That's a rhetorical ploy. Your dishonest statement implies that any semi auto rifle would be banned. That's why it's dishonest.

But you already know that.

Can you define what capabilities differentiate an AR rifle from any other magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle?

I can tell you there are major differences between a military issued AR and a civilian AR pattern rifle.

Btw, I have an AR 9mm pistol (shortly to become a carbine) that uses the same magazines as my Glock. Should one be banned but not the other simply because it is an AR pattern firearm?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

You hoplophobes really need to educate yourself on what it is you want to ban. This kind of ignorance will never convince us to give up our rights. When gun banners demonstrate complete ignorance, we stop listening to their bad ideas.

 

[humbolt]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Can you define what capabilities differentiate an AR rifle from any other magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle?

I can tell you there are major differences between a military issued AR and a civilian AR pattern rifle.

Ah, no. So far Absentglare has not responded to that question. Either he's desperately looking for a difference, or he has failed to find one and is therefore ignoring the question. Since there is no difference, I believe it to be the latter. As a result, we can look for more of the same groundless assertions that AR's are bad, just because.