AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[traderdan]

Sometimes I wonder what they put in the water in Bloomington!

 

[david890]

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.

And you've hit on my main point: the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN ASPECTS OF THE AR PLATFORM ARE SOUND AND SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED OR BANNED. Namely, that the design of the AR, which placed the barrel, bolt and stock in line resulted in reduced recoil and reduced muzzle rise. I would not be able to shoot .308 today if not for my .300 Blackout (I haven't shot an AR-10, so I can't speak about its recoil on my bad neck).

The issues being raised are, again, the power of the round and the capacity of the firearm (both in terms of magazine capacity and speed of reloading). It is not a great design challenge to create an 5-8 round internal magazine, nor to make reloading a slower, more complicated process. Either would reduce the ability of someone to use such a modified AR in scenarios such as Aurora, Sandy Hook or Orlando. It would not prevent it, but it would REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD, which is what a lot of people want.

 

[david890]

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

Of course there is "pool control"! You have a pool, you need a fence around it (at least for in-ground pools). Companies manufacture wave detectors that will sound off if something falls in (such as a toddler).

Again, Congress - or any municipality - would be completely within their right to ban them outright. No question about that.

 

[david890]

You don't need those Class 3/NFA items. Turn them in now before they go on a killing spree.

Suppressors. You don't want the tinnitus I have, and I don't want to make it worse when shooting.

 

[HoughMade]

Sometimes I wonder what they put in the water in Bloomington!

Troll fertilizer....to help grow more trolls.

 

[david890]

No civilian needs to own class 3 firearms. You can hunt and defend your home just fine with long barreled rifles and shotguns, and you don't need suppressors, machineguns, or grenade launchers.

Again, suppressors. Unlikely to kill someone unless I use them to bash someone in the head.

Oh, and your Steyr AUG shares the same caliber and very similar fire rates to the rifles used at Newtown and Orlando. You should really consider destroying it as it is clearly a public danger and you should feel ashamed owning it.

Sold it many years ago. Got out what I put into it. Not ashamed to own it, as this was well before Columbine and subsequent mass shootings. I suspect I wouldn't buy it today.

Or are you more trustable with firearms than the rest of us lowly peons? "For me but not for thee"?

Based on what I have read by some people, I would say yes. Are you suggesting that everyone on INGO is ABSOLUTELY trustworthy and will NEVER commit a crime with a firearm? Given the range of emotions (and basic stats), someone in this group WILL go off one day.

 

[david890]

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.

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the closed-door SCOTUS debates!!! I'm sure we would have heard all of those from the various Justices!!!

 

[VERT]

Only 5-8 rounds in an internal magazine. I see a lot of shooting sports being affected. But sport shooting is not the issue. Of course those same people participating in those sports with growing interest are also the same people who might support a RTKBA

 

[DoggyDaddy]

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.

Then I'm sure you'd be fine if Congress declared that the freedom of speech and the press as defined in the 1st amendment only applied to documents that were written with quill and ink or news that was spread by the town crier, since you know, that was the technology available at the time?

ETA Scooped by Vert.

 

[VERT]

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the closed-door SCOTUS debates!!! I'm sure we would have heard all of those from the various Justices!!!

Which is why we have to very carefully consider who we elect to the executive branch. There is no perfect choice but it is clear who would be bad for the security and prosperity of this country. If faced with two bad choices I am going to go with the one I haven't tried before.

 

[david890]

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?

Both the M-16 and AK-47 are SELECT-FIRE weapon, meaning both semi- and full-auto. Begs the question of how much YOU know about firearms.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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).

Statement of purpose does not define a constitutional right. The right is far broader than the mere statement of purpose.

The statement of purpose of the First Amendment does not define that right anymore than the statement of purpose of the Second Amendment defines that right.

 

[BugI02]

"Whatever"? Please address the issues I raised.

Battling up San Juan Hill the spanish infantry mausers delivered near overwhelming firepower compared to The Fifth Corps' Krags.
The same was true later of those who met the 1911 in battle in comparison with their revolvers or met the M1A with their mausers
Those guns were front line military weapons in their heyday and now are a proud part of many firearms collections
The AR is following a well established path and is not terribly different from its forbears
Though I likely won't be here to participate, I would anticipate that in thirty years they will be arguing that the common citizen does not 'need' a man-portable rail gun, and the answer will be the same - politicians don't tell a US citizen which of their rights they 'need' to exercise

 

[BogWalker]

Based on what I have read by some people, I would say yes. Are you suggesting that everyone on INGO is ABSOLUTELY trustworthy and will NEVER commit a crime with a firearm? Given the range of emotions (and basic stats), someone in this group WILL go off one day.

Hey, folks, he actually admitted it! He doesn't trust other gun owners to be able to own firearms, therefore we should be limited in what we can own. Except him of course. He's totally trustable and shouldn't have to give up his AR-15 or his suppressors. But we should because those are for mass murderers and 1920's gangsters.

 

[HoughMade]

Dictators gonna dictate.

...even if their balcony is only a username

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sold it many years ago. Got out what I put into it. Not ashamed to own it, as this was well before Columbine and subsequent mass shootings. I suspect I wouldn't buy it today.

Columbine was not committed with a Steyr AUG, but with governmentally-approved non-"assault" firearms.

 

[david890]

So who is the militia?

Well, we transitioned to a standing army (and Navy) not long after the Constitution was ratified, so the question really never came up. I suspect the closest we currently have is the National Guard, each managed by the individual states. I doubt your average American considers a bunch of locals led by some guy wearing a star on collar to be "well-regulated".

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?

Those mediums are pretty much "owned" by the government. You have no "right" to any of them. You need a license to legally broadcast on certain bands/frequencies, and the content is "well-regulated" (no ****!).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, we transitioned to a standing army (and Navy) not long after the Constitution was ratified, so the question really never came up. I suspect the closest we currently have is the National Guard, each managed by the individual states.

Militia is still defined in Title 10. National Guard is not militia. 9-0 in Perpich v. DoD.

 

[david890]

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.

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Which comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or Bill of Rights.


Also, I suspect Scalia would argue, as he did in Heller, that the 2nd does grant a right to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, the Heller decision makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Also, I suspect Scalia would argue, as he did in Heller, that the 2nd does grant a right to keep and bear arms.

Constitution does not grant rights. Our constitutional rights pre-date the Constitution.

The Constitution merely recognizes rights.