Hard to get my ass. Wal-Mart has SOLD OUT of the same Bushmaster AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook shooting in 5 states. Come to Canada and try buying an AR-15 and then talk to me about hard to get.Ryotknife said:
Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S
- Thread starter Friendly Lich
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unfortunately it's not possible to have a sensible debate about gun ownership. Paranoia and pride often get in the way.
For what it's worth, I don't think guns should be in the hands of the general population, but I also believe that disarming America is impossible now. Still, i'm curious as to what would happen if the laws changed, and police started going door-to-door demanding firearms be handed over. I imagine it wouldn't be pretty.
For what it's worth, I don't think guns should be in the hands of the general population, but I also believe that disarming America is impossible now. Still, i'm curious as to what would happen if the laws changed, and police started going door-to-door demanding firearms be handed over. I imagine it wouldn't be pretty.
As has already been stated numerous times and AR-15 IS NOT and assault rifle an assault rifle as defined by the US government and governments around the world isAzrealMaximillion said:
"A selective fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons. Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies."
AR-15's are NOT capable of fully auto or burst fire and therefore NOT assault rifle's.
An Assault Weapon is a fairly new category invented by anti-gun politicians who want to restrict certain features on guns, features that do not effect the function of said guns only the looks presumably because if a gun looks scary it must be dangerous so people shouldn't own those scary looking gun.
I live in California so I am most familiar with assault weapon laws there also CA assault weapon laws are very similar to the Clinton era assault weapon ban and the new proposed assault weapon ban. So lets take a look at the assault weapons laws in California. Under CA law pistol grip's, flash suppressor's, and adjustable stock's are all "evil features" and yes "evil features" is actually the exact wording used in the law (lol). And any center fire semi-automatic rifle that has any of these features AND a removable magazine (CA law defines a fixed magazine as something requiring a "tool" to remove) is an assault weapon and therefore illegal to own in CA unless it is registered assault weapon which had to have been done before the laws went into effect.
As I said I live in CA and I own a perfectly legal AR-15, the only difference between my AR-15 and AR-15's sold in every other state is mine has to have a fixed magazine. With a fixed magazine under CA law my AR-15 is not an assault weapon but simply semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle. In order for my magazine to be fixed CA requires that I need a tool to remove it so I have whats called a bullet button installed on my AR-15 instead of a push button magazine release. With a bullet button I cannot drop mag's with my finger I have to use a tool in this case the tip of a bullet makes a great tool and also legally qualifies as a tool but you can also use a key or a screwdriver or anything long and pointy enough to do he job, here's an example of how it works, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VseNzVcIjtc .
If I wanted to get rid of the bullet button and just put a normal push button release on my AR I could do whats called a featureless build and by simply removing the "evil features" and replacing them with (non-evil features? lol) so a fixed stock, a aftermarket grip that is not a pistol grip the monster man grip for example, and a compensator. So if I did that my AR would look something like this http://i48.tinypic.com/nb590.jpg . And I could then put a normal magazine release on it and even use 30 round magazine's provided I owned them before the CA magazine ban went into effect.
TLDR: Assault weapons are a myth invented by anti-gun activists, assault weapon bans only restrict superficial cosmetic attributes of firearms, it's like making a certain color scheme illegal on a car.
AzrealMaximillion said:
(1) 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. Pp. 2?53.
(a) The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2?22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court?s interpretation of the operative clause. The ?militia? comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens? militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens? militia would be preserved. Pp. 22?28.
(c) The Court?s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28?30.
(d) The Second Amendment?s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30?32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court?s conclusion. Pp. 32?47.
(f) None of the Court?s precedents forecloses the Court?s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47?54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54?56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District?s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ?arms? that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition ? in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute ? would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56?64.
(a) The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2?22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court?s interpretation of the operative clause. The ?militia? comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens? militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens? militia would be preserved. Pp. 22?28.
(c) The Court?s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28?30.
(d) The Second Amendment?s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30?32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court?s conclusion. Pp. 32?47.
(f) None of the Court?s precedents forecloses the Court?s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47?54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54?56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District?s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ?arms? that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition ? in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute ? would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56?64.
I know, I read history. Penn and Teller themselves have been open they have made goofs in the past (they planned for the last episode of Bullshit to be "the Bullshit of Bullshit," but they went onto "Penn and Teller tell a Lie" before they could do that). I think they might of skimmed over what militias are, since they were still a 22 minute show.Friv said:
However, all this is immaterial, since the part I wanted to note is there is a comma between "the militia" and "the People."
The preamble "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is NOT a limit on gun ownership it does not say anywhere "if you choose not to be a part of a militia you cannot own a gun" rather it simply reenforces the individual idea of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Check out this video pay special attention to fact's 3 and 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgLEGibyXs&feature=player_embeddedFriv said:
One other things on militia's, even if you could interrupt the 2nd amendment to mean you have to be in a militia to own firearms it's actually illegal in most states to form a militia without first getting approval from both local and state government, good luck with that.
I don't see where I lied or made anything up, wanna be more specific? We may disagree about the exact meaning of the 2nd amendment but that's nothing new people have been arguing its exact meaning for decades. However the supreme court has already ruled that the 2nd amendment supports the right of the people to own guns for self defense.
America loves guns....america loves violence and war like it loves deepthroating a mayonnaise and lard coated hotdog while popping ritalin and shooting heroin..America is not..never was, and never will be a land where there is no guns.
People need to shut up about the sandyhook thing, because it's happened before and it'll happen again, if guns are taken away then kids'll probably be hacked up with an axe or some shit..killers kill regardless of whether it's a gun or a rock.
People need to shut up about the sandyhook thing, because it's happened before and it'll happen again, if guns are taken away then kids'll probably be hacked up with an axe or some shit..killers kill regardless of whether it's a gun or a rock.
Would like to see you kill 28 people at once with a rock. You going to coin the new phrase kill 22 kids with 1 stone?backinthepresentfuture said:
