Weird How The NRA Knew What an AR-15 Was For in 1962, But Now They Claim It is For Personal Protection

Sep 2019
115
177
dfw, texas
#51
The Constitution gives Americans the right to own guns. It does not give anyone the right to own grenades, land mines or shoulder fired ground to air missile systems. Most common sense Americans know there is a limit, but the gun grabbers are really about banning one gun, then another, then another, until there are no guns left.
the second amendment specifies owning arms, not guns or firearms. arms are all weapons of war. why do you think even a tiny percentage of democrats believe all guns should be banned?
 
Sep 2019
115
177
dfw, texas
#52
You realize there is a literal design and actual functional difference between an AR15 and what the military uses right?
even if so, mass shooters can use them to fire out 30 rounds in about 12 seconds, easy as pie. even the looniest, most confused, loser gun nut can take one of these guns with a high capacity magazine and use them in a crowded place to kill a dozen or more before anybody could stop him even if everybody there was armed. that is why the vast majority of Americans believe they are too lethal and too easy to use to be for public use.
 
Likes: Devil505
Jan 2008
72,012
30,060
Florida
#54
even if so, mass shooters can use them to fire out 30 rounds in about 12 seconds, easy as pie. even the looniest, most confused, loser gun nut can take one of these guns with a high capacity magazine and use them in a crowded place to kill a dozen or more before anybody could stop him even if everybody there was armed. that is why the vast majority of Americans believe they are too lethal and too easy to use to be for public use.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ QFT
 
Dec 2018
4,845
1,828
Florida
#56
same thing. not all mass shooters are white. there was that asian guy who went postal at his university. and the muslim couple who shot up a bunch of folks at the hospice where the husband worked, for some damn reason.
Or the one who killed the gay people. The black guy at the navy yard. The Muslim at Fort Hood. Ruby’s Cafe was a Hispanic guy. Not all of those were committed with ARs either. YouTube was a woman. Go figure?
 
Dec 2018
4,845
1,828
Florida
#57
even if so, mass shooters can use them to fire out 30 rounds in about 12 seconds, easy as pie. even the looniest, most confused, loser gun nut can take one of these guns with a high capacity magazine and use them in a crowded place to kill a dozen or more before anybody could stop him even if everybody there was armed. that is why the vast majority of Americans believe they are too lethal and too easy to use to be for public use.
You realize one could get the same results with a shotgun or a lever action? Handguns too. It has been done. An AR isn’t special.
 
Jul 2011
63,915
12,991
Old NYC/DMS
#58
the fact that even most gun nuts agree all arms of war should not be legal. it is just an argument over where to draw the line. do you believe you have the right to own grenades and land mines and shoulder fired ground to air missile systems?

You forgot nukes in your moronic point.

I put this nonsense to bed back in 2013"


Often we hear in discussions on limits to the 2nd amendment from those who favor greater constitutional restriction suggesting that those who support the right to own so called "assault weapons" must also by default support owning "nukes" and other devices.... I would like to address that once and for all and give you the basis why that argument is faulty given the framers intent, and philosophy of liberty and the US Constitution.


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants -Thomas Jefferson

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws -John Adams


So now, it is clear the founding fathers believed we should have access to every weapon available for defense of self and nation. So the argument comes up, does that mean they thought we should have access to nukes, et al?

Lets think about it...


The founding fathers drew thier inspiration from John Locke... "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions."


Again I give you Thomas Jefferson - "The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless."


So what does this all mean? Well lets put it in modern perspective... You have a right to defend yourself with effective tools for this purpose, but you may not molest, attack, or infringe on another who is not attacking you first.... Ok... we got that.... what does that mean? It means that said tool should be able to be controlled so that it does not molest, attack, or infringe on the right of another who is not attacking you first...

Therefore, all semi automatic weapons, pistols, rifles, even so called "assault rifles", one pull of the trigger per bullet, each shot is a conscious effort. "i shoot that, I shoot that," ie you are making the choice to shoot that which is offending your liberty with each conscious pull of the trigger are covered under the 2nd amendment.

Clearly, this falls in line with what our founding fathers believed.... Lets take the next level of weapons, Fully automatic....

One can argue that these weapons are indiscriminate that, you are not consciously "shooting that", but "shooting in that direction multiple shots with one pull of the trigger".... Each shot is not a conscious effort to defend you or your life, They have a much larger chance of "infringing" on a non belligerent aggressor (read innocent citizen), than a semi automatic rifle....

ok so there is some argument for and against machine gun ownership in the US. I get that....Now here is where it becomes apparent why a nuclear weapon and otherindiscriminate weapons are not covered by this amendment....


a Nuke, kills innocents, causes harm for years, it's not just those you are defending yourself against. So they are out. obviously...


this would include also, land mines, grenades, rocket launcers, "bazzookas", chemical weapons, or anything the opponents of the 2nd amendment can think of that are indiscriminate..So in conclusion:


Nukes are not covered by the 2nd for private citizens, because they are not discriminant enough for use in self defense


That I believe puts this argument to rest.
 
Jul 2011
63,915
12,991
Old NYC/DMS
#59
hate to burst your snot bubble, but your post confirms that the Supreme Court clearly believes certain arms of war can be banned from private ownership. try to read it again.

The key to the government’s case—that the Second Amendment provided only a very narrow right to keep and bear arms — is found in the third quarter of the brief. 16 Jackson argued that the Second Amendment was rooted in English Common Law, which law:

♦ strictly limited the right to keep and to bear arms; 17
♦ allowed the people to take up arms in self-defense against "tyrannical and unprincipled rulers". 18
♦ "did not permit the keeping of arms for purposes of private defense." 19
♦ "only allowed persons of a certain rank to have arms, and consequently this declaration of right had reference to such [persons – auths.] only." 20
♦ along with the Federal and State Constitutions recognized the right to keep and bear arms in connection with the maintenance of an effective militia, "as contrasted with a standing army which might possibly be used to oppress..." 21

As a result, Jackson concluded that the right to keep and bear arms, "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only ... for the protection of the state." 22
In the last quarter of his brief, Jackson explained that even when Courts had held that individuals could bear arms for personal protection, "the term ’arms’ as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarilyused for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals. 23 Thus, "Sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles and machine guns are clearly weapons which can have no legitimateuse in the hands of private individuals. On the contrary they ... are not weapons of the character which are recognized by the common opinion of good citizens as proper for defence. 24
In support of this conclusion, Jackson quoted from a Report of the House Ways and Means Committee

"The growing frequency of crimes of violence in which people are killed or injured by the use of dangerous weapons needs no comment. The gangster as a law violator must be deprived of his most dangerous weapon, the machine gun. Your committee is of the opinion that limiting the bill to the taxing of sawed-off guns and machine guns is sufficient at this time. It is not thought necessary to go so far as to include pistols and revolvers and sporting.arms. But while there is justification for permitting the citizen to keep a pistol or revolver for his own protection without any restriction, there is no reason why anyone except a law officer should have a machine gun or sawed-off shotgun. 25

The U.S. v Miller, revisited



Right the arms not in use by the military, they could ban revolvers, not pistols, they could ban hunting rifles not an ar15....


see last post, not going to repeat myself.
 
Nov 2018
7,285
2,351
Maryland
#60
the second amendment specifies owning arms, not guns or firearms. arms are all weapons of war. why do you think even a tiny percentage of democrats believe all guns should be banned?
Based on what several Founding Fathers have written, it's obvious they were talking about guns. It's a silly argument to think we have the right to have a tank, rockets, and other warfare equipment.

Not all Democrats want to take away guns, but some of them do, and their voices are being heard. And, while many of them claim not to want to ban ALL guns, the Democrats know that they have to use incremental steps, but the end goal is to ban guns.


1568223825921.png
 

Similar Discussions