AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[actaeon277]

The Centers for Disease Control report that here in the United States, on average, 3,536 people died from drowning annually from 2005 to 2014


Where's the call for pool control?
No one "needs" a pool. Or at least not at their house

 

[david890]

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that the people's right to have military grade weapons for defense of themselves, their communities and their country was untouchable.

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.

 

[actaeon277]

Cars in 2014 killed 32,675 people.

No one "needs" a car.
Let them use buses, trains, or cabs.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Paychecks are based on the work Stoner did; I suspect you're thinking of ROYALTIES. But then, you generally don't get royalties for work you did while employed by a company. You might get a patent, but the rights and royalties (for licensing to other companies) belong to the company that paid you. Hiram Maxim made a killing (pun intended) during WW1 by licensing his machine gun to all sides.

Nowhere in Stoner's biography do I see an indication that he intended any of his designs to be used by civilians. The AR-10 (designed before the AR-15) was in competition with the M-14. The Stoner 63 was clearly a military weapon, as was the Bushmaster 25mm auto cannon. Finally, the SR-25 is used primarily by Special Forces.

Those facts don't fit your rhetoric.

Yeah, I agree. I do not see where the AR was developed as anything but a military weapon. It is incidental that AR's also turn out to be good choices for hunting, target shooting and home defense. We get all kinds of stuff from the defense industry like GPS and IR Gear.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

Oh wow. The "well-regulated militia" argument.
Did you seriously bring that up.
Do I need to find the thread, or are we going to sling it out here?
We could bring out, who is in the militia.
We could maybe look up the word "regulated" as in reference to historical definition.
Or we could hit the grammar argument about the placement of the comma, and what constitutes the parts of a sentence.

 

[JettaKnight]

If my family ever makes outrageous claims about me like this I will haunt them worse than any horror movie ever created.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, time to "regulate" some paperwork.

 

[VERT]

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.

By that same analogy people should not be able to deliver the news via radio or television. After all you can read it in the paper.

Your interpretation of how the 2nd admendment reads is incorrect. It is written as an individual right. Reference to the mlitia is a statement of why that right was necessary.

 

[david890]

Everyone is inherently capable of committing unspeakable horrors with these evil weapons therefore no one should be trusted with them. It's in the 2nd Amendment. I read it in the living document addition.

Unspeakable horrors were committed during the time of the American Revolution. The issue isn't about a generalized weapon, otherwise we would have to ban sticks, clubs, rocks, fists, feet, etc. Instead, the issue now before us is the ability of someone to use a hi-powered, hi-capacity firearm to commit unspeakable acts.

Ya know, people have used explosives to kill (e.g., 1924 Bath School Bombing), yet I don't hear people complaining about their inability to readily buy TNT, RDX or SEMTEX. We have lots of laws regarding explosives; why is that? Is it solely because explosives aren't considered "arms"?

 

[david890]

I'm still waiting for the things given up by the anti-gun crowd.

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

 

[HoughMade]

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.

All I "sez" is what the Supreme Court has already determined. You want the Constitution changed, change it. There is an amendment process.

 

[edporch]

Stoner's family says “Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,”.

An AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon, so I MUST assume they're talking about an M-16 which is a fully automatic weapon.

An AR15 is simply a semi-automatic ONLY rifle that looks a certain way.

Which begs the question, that I wonder how much the Stoner family members saying this actually know about firearms?

 

[VERT]

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

How has the NRA or any other group such as the 2nd Admendment Foundation or Gun Owners of America contributed to any of these issues.

 

[david890]

By that same analogy people should not be able to deliver the news via radio or television. After all you can read it in the paper.

Your interpretation of how the 2nd admendment reads is incorrect. It is written as an individual right. Reference to the mlitia is a statement of why that right was necessary.

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.

 

[BogWalker]

Freedom from mass shootings. Shooter at the University of Texas in 1966 used an M1 carbine. Better get rid of yours if you still have it.

Freedom from over-penetration. .223 is a fantastic round for preventing over penetration. The Remington 700 you adore is much more likely to over penetrate.
Freedom from shootings by toddlers. Pretty sure toddlers can do this with any gun, so you've got absolutely no point here.
Freedom from in-discriminant drive-bys. And, again, any gun can be used for this. Once again you have no point.

These are silly arguments.

Why don't you get rid of your guns? Or are you more qualified than the rest of us to own them?

Once again, "for me but not for thee" is what I think is going on here, but he'll never admit to it.

 

[david890]

Cars in 2014 killed 32,675 people.

No one "needs" a car.
Let them use buses, trains, or cabs.

You're completely correct. There is no right to own a car, so Congress could ban them. Also, they could mandate a maximum HP, a minimum MPG, airbags, crash-resistant bumpers, seatbelts, etc. - just as they have.

The auto industry fought several safety improvements, as they thought it could make people think cars were somehow inherently unsafe - imagine that. Ultimately, these features (not "bugs") were and are seen as positives by the public.

You really wanna drive a Corvair today??

 

[KG1]

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

You can clear your conscience and give up your guns if you are so inclined to do so. No one here will try to talk you out of doing so. As for me and mine we'll just keep ours. We have plenty of other uses for them other than the ones you have mentioned. We did'nt commit the crimes. We sleep quite well at night.

 

[VERT]

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.

So who is the militia?

You are correct that there are restrictions on the airwaves. Same as there are restrictions on the manufacture and sale of firearms. Same as there are rules in how land and other resources are used. But could you imagine the fallout if the government shutoff all internet, tv and radio. What if all of these mediums were owned by the government?

 

[snorko]

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.

You seem to fundamentally MIS-understand one thing. The second amendment does NOT grant individuals or "well regulated militias" the right to keep and bear arms. That right is a natural right, one of which "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Read. The. Text. The second amendment grants nothing but it restricts what the government can do in relation to this natural right. The bulk of the amendments are restrictions on the government's action.

 

[traderdan]

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.

The Founding fathers would have already used their "modern day muskets" to end oppressive government.