Why I love the 2nd Amendment......

[utdbear]

But your need, or lack of it, isn't what the law is based on. It's based on the fact that assault weapons are a threat to public safety, and unlike other things, there is no overriding need to balance against that danger.

Same logic as to why you can't buy a nuclear weapon.

It is illegal right now to purchase a nuclear weapon.

Also, I own an AR-15, 10 and about 50,000 rounds of ammo. Never have I come close to shooting anybody, so your threat of public safety is void.

Um, how are you comparing them? Because they are not the same thing.

-- A2SG, to start with, one is a good where the other is a service....

An AR-15 is legal under current law, as is an AR-10, as is getting abortion. The reason you want 'assault weapons' gone is because you see no need for one to have such a weapon.

Don't you think I could find a reason why someone doesn't NEED an abortion?

What if I determined that you don't NEED to have lawyer present in order for police officers to question you or NEED them to have a search warrant in order to search you or your home? Those rights are just as individual as my right to own a semi automatic firearm to defend, hunt, target shoot, whatever lawful activity I deem necessary for my survival, entertainment, or anything else I so desire.

Point is, is that rights aren't based on 3rd party views on what others need. You don't get to dictate what I do or don't need if it's currently an individual right as guaranteed by the Constitution. You seem to be missing that.

 

[Crusader05]

No. I mean they are the same gun, probably even the same model. Those are both Ruger 10/22's. The first one has a polymer aftermarket stock that takes approximately ten minutes to put on it.

The both accept the same magazines.

As for the other features. They don't really add or subtract much from the usefulness of the weapon as far as I can tell. We don't use bayonets much at the range. I doubt soldiers do either. They look cool, but that's about it.

I have one on my mosin to make it be historically accurate.

Pistol grips feel more comfortable. I can't say that it improves accuracy in any meaningful way vs. a featureless stock. I also think that this is probably more of a personal thing.

Barrel Shroud - That's a banned feature that really shouldn't be. It's a safety feature, it prevents you from burning yourself when touching the wrong part of the gun.

Folding or Telescopic stock - Useful if you are going to let others shoot the weapon as they can configure the stock to be the proper length. Folding stocks could help concealment or storage.

Threaded Barrel - Can be used to accept flash hiders or more commonly suppressors or muzzle brakes. Suppressors and Flash Hiders require tax stamps and are regulated. The muzzle brakes are useful in competition as they decrease recoil which can result in increased accuracy.

Exactly! All of these "scary" features have very reasonable applications for sport shooters. They do not make the weapon more deadly or dangerous, the bullets don't fly faster or do more damage, this is all hyperbole designed to infridge on the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[Loudmouth]

Point is, is that rights aren't based on 3rd party views on what others need. You don't get to dictate what I do or don't need if it's currently an individual right as guaranteed by the Constitution. You seem to be missing that.

However, the courts do get to decide because it is a power granted them by the Constitution.

As I have outlined in previous posts, the court decision in Heller v. DC (2011) stated that you do not need assault rifles in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

As we did in evaluating the constitutionality of certain of the registration requirements, we determine the appropriate standard of review by assessing how severely the prohibitions burden the Second Amendment right. Unlike the law held unconstitutional in Heller, the laws at issue here do not prohibit the possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” to wit, the handgun. 554 U.S. at 629. Nor does the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles prevent a person from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for protection in the home or for hunting, whether a handgun or a non-automatic long gun. . . Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

​

The court ruled to uphold the assault weapons ban. The ban was found to be constitutional by the parties that are supposed to judge these things.

 

[mzungu]

Exactly! All of these "scary" features have very reasonable applications for sport shooters. They do not make the weapon more deadly or dangerous, the bullets don't fly faster or do more damage, this is all hyperbole designed to infridge on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Wanna bet! You take a bolt action 3 round cartridge rifle and I take an AK47 and we see who wins! Why do you think the army uses such weapons as M16? Do you think it is because of hyperbole????

 

[utdbear]

However, the courts do get to decide because it is a power granted them by the Constitution.

As I have outlined in previous posts, the court decision in Heller v. DC (2011) stated that you do not need assault rifles in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

As we did in evaluating the constitutionality of certain of the registration requirements, we determine the appropriate standard of review by assessing how severely the prohibitions burden the Second Amendment right. Unlike the law held unconstitutional in Heller, the laws at issue here do not prohibit the possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” to wit, the handgun. 554 U.S. at 629. Nor does the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles prevent a person from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for protection in the home or for hunting, whether a handgun or a non-automatic long gun. . . Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

​

The court ruled to uphold the assault weapons ban. The ban was found to be constitutional by the parties that are supposed to judge these things.

That ruling was in regards to a city ordinance or law, and ruled that the Second Amendment is not unlimited. I agree with that ruling. You would be right except this is federal law being proposed. Cities and states may issue 'assault weapons' bans. As long as I follow federal law(gun is locked and ammo is stored seperately), I am allowed to travel in that state with any item they deem an 'assault weapon'.

The Supreme Court would certainly strike this down.

 

[utdbear]

Wanna bet! You take a bolt action 3 round cartridge rifle and I take an AK47 and we see who wins! Why do you think the army uses such weapons as M16? Do you think it is because of hyperbole????

I'd take that. My 7mm-08 vs. an AK in an open field. You wouldn't get with 500 yards. I also wouldn't know what to do with the other 2 rounds.

The M16 and AK are used because they are cheap, ammo is cheap, and they are easy to maintain in the field for long periods of time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wanna bet! You take a bolt action 3 round cartridge rifle and I take an AK47 and we see who wins! Why do you think the army uses such weapons as M16? Do you think it is because of hyperbole????

So what you're saying is that civilians, most of whom have no training in self defense using a firearm, should be able to defend themselves in a moments notice, perhaps in the dark, with ten or less bullets, while soldiers, with comprehensive training get to use 'spray and pray' weapons, body armor, and night vision goggles?

I wanna be 'sprayin' and it's the intruder that should be 'prayin'.

 

[Crusader05]

Wanna bet! You take a bolt action 3 round cartridge rifle and I take an AK47 and we see who wins! Why do you think the army uses such weapons as M16? Do you think it is because of hyperbole????

In close quarter combat the AK has the advantage at long range I'll take the bolt gun.

The military uses a variety of firearms, most solders will have your basic M4, some will have heavy belt-fed machine guns, some will be designated marksmen with bolt action or semi-auto rifles configured for long range accuracy.

I think it is certainly unreasonable for gun grabbers try to say common features like pistol grips, flash surpressors and telescoping stocks automatically make a gun "bad" requiring a federal law banning it. Those features do nothing to make the bullets faster or more likely to inflict damage.

 

[jgarden]

and why we shouldn't tolerate anyone who would infringe it.

I love the 2nd Amendment because it is the one instrument of liberty that not only preserves American freedom, but the freedom of the entire world. No other law, no matter how comprehensive or eloquent, compares to this 'declaration of freedom in a single sentence'.

Only a government that fears it's own people seeks to disarm them. In the face of falling violent crime rates our president is considering limiting our gun rights by executive order.

He doesn't fear armed insurrection, but political consequences from the left if he doesn't placate their insistence on limiting those rights. He must 'win' this fight or be seen as a weak leader, which will surely jeopardize his other liberal programs, and his legacy.

Just as the torch of preserving freedom is passed by conservatives the torch of repression of rights is passed by the liberals. They expand the 'rights' of the 1st Amendment with one hand while at the same time picking our pocket of the 2nd with the other.

These people are tyrants (albeit often unwitting), and are the most compelling reason to reinforce and expand our 2nd Amendment rights.

"The best defense is a good offense."

- the 2nd Amendment because it is the one instrument of liberty that not only preserves American freedom,

- but the freedom of the entire world

- only a government that fears it's own people seeks to disarm them

- the torch of preserving freedom is passed by conservatives

- the torch of repression of rights is passed by the liberals.

 

[utdbear]

- the torch of preserving freedom is passed by conservatives

- the torch of repression of rights is passed by the liberals.

Yup.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

- the 2nd Amendment because it is the one instrument of liberty that not only preserves American freedom,

- but the freedom of the entire world

- only a government that fears it's own people seeks to disarm them

- the torch of preserving freedom is passed by conservatives

- the torch of repression of rights is passed by the liberals.

Here's another one:

"Better stupid and free than enslaved to a maelstrom of useless knowledge and ideology." --oldwiseguy

 

[Loudmouth]

That ruling was in regards to a city ordinance or law, and ruled that the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

They also ruled that the assault weapons ban was constitutional.

You would be right except this is federal law being proposed. Cities and states may issue 'assault weapons' bans.

The 2nd Amendment applies to cities and states as well which is why the case was heard. The whole point of the case was to test the constitutionality of required registration and assault weapons ban.

The Supreme Court would certainly strike this down.

They may, but it has passed muster in the lower courts. Like I have said before, I think the NRA will try its hardest to keep this out of the Supreme Court because they know they will lose.

 

[Loudmouth]

- the 2nd Amendment because it is the one instrument of liberty that not only preserves American freedom,

- but the freedom of the entire world

- only a government that fears it's own people seeks to disarm them

- the torch of preserving freedom is passed by conservatives

- the torch of repression of rights is passed by the liberals.

No one is proposing a law that will disarm people.

 

[QR1]

Wanna bet! You take a bolt action 3 round cartridge rifle and I take an AK47 and we see who wins! Why do you think the army uses such weapons as M16? Do you think it is because of hyperbole????

I am in for betting. I'll even keep it in the same family of arms. My 1945 Mossin Nagant against any Russian AK. Your choice of 21' or 500 yards for starters. At 21' though. . . I don't know what use I'd have for three bullets.

 

[Blackguard_]

If you were a military general, which one would you want your soldiers to have if those were the only two choices, and why that rifle?

If you were a police chief, which one would you want your officers to have if those were the only two choices, and why that rifle?

To answer your question though, I think the only useful feature on the top rifle over the bottom one, unless that is a telescoping stock and not just a fixed M4 type stock, is the rails on the foregrip, which no one as far as I know is proposing on banning.

The fact of the matter is that these features are put on the rifle to make them more effective in combat. They are offensive weapons, not defensive.

How does that follow? How does things added for more effective combat mean they can't be added for defense also, or for sporting reasons? And is combat purely offensive?

For example, folding stocks were originally for paratroopers and vehicle crews, but today they have adjustable/telescoping stocks for a better fit to the shooter, which is useful for offense or defense or sporting use.
It's a defensive capability to have a gun fit you better and that a long gun can be used by people of very different size. Or do you think a husband and wife or parents and older kids should all have to have their own home defense long guns?

I don't see how a "more combat effective" feature means that civilians have no use for it.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No one is proposing a law that will disarm people.

No, they just want to make it harder to get guns...

 

[Loudmouth]

How does that follow? How does things added for more effective combat mean they can't be added for defense also, or for sporting reasons? And is combat purely offensive?

Look at how they are used by the military. Do you think this is just a coincidence? Their purpose is to be used by an attacking force. They are designed for this role.

I don't see how a "more combat effective" feature means that civilians have no use for it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that civilians use these weapons for entertainment and as a hobby. I can't imagine someone using an AR15 for deer hunting, but who knows, maybe someone does.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, they just want to make it harder to get guns...

Not even that. Handguns will still be as available as they were before, even if they have smaller magazines. Hunting rifles and shotguns will still be as easy to get. If you have to wait an extra day or two for a background check I really don't see how that is "disarming the public". The reaction from people is pretty ridiculous at times. Think about it.

Ralph: Hey Fred, did you hear that they are going to ban the sale of some assault rifles?

Fred: Did you say that they are coming to my house to take all my guns!!!!!

 

[jgarden]

Here's another one:

"Better stupid and free than enslaved to a maelstrom of useless knowledge and ideology." --oldwiseguy

“Every gun that's made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms...is spending the genius of its scientists, the sweat of its laborers,”
- Dwight David Eisenhower quotes (American 34th President (1953-61). 1890-1969)

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3408-every-gun-that-is-made-every-warship-launched-every-rocket
***************************************************************************************************

“A lot of the people who keep a gun at home for safety are the same ones who refuse to wear a seat belt”
- George Carlin quotes (American stand-up Comedian, Actor and Author. b.1937)

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_lot_of_the_people_who_keep_a_gun_at_home_for/199082.html

 

[DuneSoldier]

Not even that. Handguns will still be as available as they were before, even if they have smaller magazines. Hunting rifles and shotguns will still be as easy to get. If you have to wait an extra day or two for a background check I really don't see how that is "disarming the public". The reaction from people is pretty ridiculous at times. Think about it.

Ralph: Hey Fred, did you hear that they are going to ban the sale of some assault rifles?

Fred: Did you say that they are coming to my house to take all my guns!!!!!

I think Fred is more upset because he wants to buy one of them, but they are talking about banning the sale of them. And they are all sold out. Or he already owns one and is worried about the market for spare parts and accessories drying up.

And yes, people do use AK's, SKS for hunting. 7.62x39 is roughly equivalent to the old 30-30 round in terms of trajectory and power. But in a more modern platform. There are 5 round magazines for the AK for that purpose.

The AR-15's used for hunting that I have seen generally are chambered in .308 (7.62x51) for that purpose.