Last time, Constitutional rights are not absolute, and can be legally regulated, and those living in those neighborhoods are the greatest victims of guns
So, you believe the restrictions you seek for the right to bear arms, if similarly applied to the right to have an abortion, would not violate the constitution. Good to know.
That's funny, two posters above told me they own prior military weapons Weapons are not duplicates, but one is modeled after the other, both designed to kill as many as possible in the shortest amount of time
He's referring to the result of the Hughes amendment dear. You again say that its made to kill things as if that were not a valid purpose. See the 2nd amendment, it most certainly is a valid purpose.
You deliberately ignore the context of the two statements, because you know you have no effective response. And thus, the AR15 is not a military weapon. Thank you You and I both know you cannot prove this to be true.
if guns aren't used for sport best you contact the Olympics Also the supreme court has already ruled that the second amendment allows you to be able to purchase any fire arm that is in common usage the AR-15 is probably the most sold and owned rifle on the market
The presence of these weapons in the hands of civilians is a danger to society. There is no constitutional right to own weapons intended for warfare. Implying that is an absurd position to take given the history of regulating weapons. None of you needs to be armed ready to form a militia to create an army against invaders. We have a standing army, a national guard, police protection, a full compliment of air, sea and land defenses and your participation in them is limited to your volunteering effort within the armed forces. You by yourself constitute no part of any of our national, state or local defense forces. The sale and ownership of these types of weapons, all of them, are unnecessary as it relates to hunting, protecting yourself or any other reason. If you use it to shoot pigs, you are a very lazy hunter and likely a very poor shot. I picked up an AR about a year ago for the first time in my life. After a couple practice shots, I hit a target at 200 yards. When I was a kid, we used shot guns or rifles to hunt and we practiced. Now it's no longer a sport or skill, it is simply shooting high capacity rounds like some crazed madman in a sicario movie.
This is unsupportable hyperbolic opinion and nothing more. The constitution protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms". The AR15 is a "bearable arm". As The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, your statement, even if true, is irrelevant. The constitution protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms". The AR15 is a "bearable arm".
It is absurd to think that guns are designed for the primary purpose of shooting paper targets. Meaning new legislation, or circling on to gun manufacturers, can eliminate the current barrier you feel allows anyone to own anything in "common use"
Ahhhhh, lets sue the **** out of the manufactures approach. Nope, this is a run around to banning guns. Once a manufacture is sued, prices increase for product and some manufactures will dissolve and leave the market, once product cost rise the rich/government can only afford to purchase and the common peasant will no longer participate in the 2A pool. Sensible? No, it is selective by design and class. Sorry progs, we will not let this happen.
None of this changes the fact you know you cannot prove your claim, and yet you continue to make it. "In common use" cones form the SCotUS and has been upheld 3 times since 1939. It's not going anywhere.
A rifle specially designed and built to shoot at paper targets as matter of fact it is called a competition target rifle used in shooting competitions including the Olympics
It is the only bulwark society has against tyranny. It helps keep society free. There is in fact such a right, see 2nd amendment. You mean the history where the founders didn't restrict weapons by type? Actually we do need to be armed to form a militia, that's how militias work. There is in fact a militia, in addition to all the other services you named, you can check the US code if you don't believe me. According to the law, I am a member of the unorganized militia so technically I am a part of local forces in the case of an event which triggers the calling up of the militia IE invasion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 No, there's just a lot of javelina to kill (they're vermin that cause serious damage, remember? ) and I don't like working a bolt every time I shoot because this isn't WW1 or the 1850s. I use technology that is almost a full century old (semi auto action) instead of one nearer to two centuries old. Sue me. You don't get practice shots while hunting chief. The AK is a rifle, I'm not sure what you're clutching your pearls about. I'm exterminating vermin and collecting food, not competing in a sport. I'm eating, its not a ****ing game dude. I find it disrespectful to turn gathering food or pruning an invasive species population into a sport. I eat Japanese food with a fork or my hands too, even though I know how to use chopsticks! Fear my barbarian ways! Wrongthink o noes!
It protects more than that, but it prima facie (on its face as in without examining the concept at all just reading the literal definitions) extends to bearable arms bar none. If one uses the same penumbra argument used in Roe v Wade or Planned Parenthood v Casey, the marque and reprisal clause and 2a cause a penumbra that clearly extends to more than simply man portable weapons. The marque and reprisal clause contemplates that with permission a civilian may be granted a license to operate as a privateer. That means ownership of a ship of war, with cannons etc. Note only the giving of permission to STRIKE is contemplated as being needed, not permission to ARM. If they want to say that penumbras is a bullshit argument, then they can say goodbye to right to privacy which is the original use of that argument. Let the other guy set the rules, just play the game better than he does because you're better than he is.
An interesting factoid that you will summarily dismiss out of ignorance: Military rifles, and the ammo they use, are specifically designed to wound rather than to kill.
Military weapons are designed to wound? So we are sending young men into harm's way with weapons designed to wound not eliminate the enemy? That don't even sound right
The 5.56 round is indeed intended to cause grivious wounds but not outright death immediately. The theory was that you shoot a guy and he starts screaming like a stuck pig and his buddies will try to rescue him and you shoot them too. The idea is to put more than one round into them to kill them. Smaller rounds, lighter load per bullet = more shots = more combatants wounded to far to continue in theoretically a swifter time because you're shooting at clumps of guys trying to drag off their screaming friend who has a softball sized hole inside him now.
I understand that this is the position of the gun lobby. It is wrong and is causing untold deaths in America and Mexico. You are simply a customer for the gun industry and you are their perfect client. They want you to believe this claptrap, its part of their marketing strategy. Your entire opinion on this issue is a by product of decades of marketing efforts to get you to this point. I really don't give a dam what you think. Sooner or later, the rest of us are indeed going to take your guns one way or the other. It won't happen with this court but down the road, bet on it.
You just told us with confidence that weapons made for the military were made to wound not kill and now your saying I'm "ignorance of the issue?"
A legal requirement for liability insurance for gun ownership is an unacceptable infringement on a foundational constitutional right. But other than that... Gun safety classes a great idea, but to make them a legal requirement? See above; infringement.
Part of the reason for the adoption of the 5.56 caliber by the US military was that it was less immediately lethal and thus required the enemy to deal with a wounded comrade which often reduced their effectiveness in a battle.
