You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AR-15: Let's have some debating points
- Thread starter ligonierbill
- Start date
carguychris
New member
I believe you are incorrect. Show me.SCOTUS recently upheld this opinion, in confirming that the citizenry is a "militia"....
According to my reading, the Heller majority opinion clearly holds that the 2A protects a pre-existing common-law right to keep and bear arms independent of militia service, and that the militia clause simply clarifies that this right also applies to personally owned arms used by the militia. IOW the militia clause is meant to be incidental and explanatory, NOT to make the RKBA or 2A conditional. (See my prior posts.)
The general citizenry is defined as an "unorganized" militia by statute in order to give Congress the power to conduct a military draft, a power it otherwise lacks. Statute law does not give the unorganized militia any rights, privileges, or duties other than the duty to show up when drafted into active military service.
Correlation does not imply causation. The jury is still out regarding whether shall-issue CHL laws directly lead to a decrease in crime.Violent, gun related crimes have DECREASED 50% in Florida since it became a shall-issue state.
I absolutely support such laws and believe they have been successful, but there are stronger arguments to support them than nebulous and debatable crime stats.
Last edited:
22-rimfire
New member
I think the anti-gun agrument amounts to... if a child does something naughty with a toy and can not be reasoned with, you take away the toy.
Well, children aren't allowed to own AR's, AK's and so forth. You can reason with adults and it is clear from the homicide rate (and stats) that rifles are not the firearm of choice for criminals. They are essentially the same guns that have been used since John M Browning invented the self loading mechanism with a few modifications for sporting purposes.
IF the proposed legislation is about crime, then it misses the mark. If it is about restricting your 2A rights, it hits the mark. People should not stand for politicians trying to restrict their God given 2A rights. Governments all over the world have restricted firearm ownership claiming crime is the reason. The reality is that they restrict firearm ownership to concentrate their statist power over the people. Governments are not to be trusted to always have the people's interest as foremost in their minds.
Well, children aren't allowed to own AR's, AK's and so forth. You can reason with adults and it is clear from the homicide rate (and stats) that rifles are not the firearm of choice for criminals. They are essentially the same guns that have been used since John M Browning invented the self loading mechanism with a few modifications for sporting purposes.
IF the proposed legislation is about crime, then it misses the mark. If it is about restricting your 2A rights, it hits the mark. People should not stand for politicians trying to restrict their God given 2A rights. Governments all over the world have restricted firearm ownership claiming crime is the reason. The reality is that they restrict firearm ownership to concentrate their statist power over the people. Governments are not to be trusted to always have the people's interest as foremost in their minds.
Last edited:
The absurdity of the "guns were made to kill people" argument still amazes me. The problem with that logic is that there are times when certain people desperately need to be killed. A gun is simply the most efficient tool for that purpose. Why do they accept the idea that law enforcement should have guns but not anyone else?
how is it more than a lethal toy?........ Other than, "I want it and I have the right", what argument would you put to a skeptical neutral?.......... They're thinking, "What harm would it do to ban these things?" Help make the case.
Try This;
US Law: Title 36 U. S. Code, 0701-40733
Created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS, the formal legal name of the CMP) mandates these key “functions for the corporation: (this is actually a carry over from the DCM, Division of Civilian Marksmanship from the early 1900s.)
(1) To instruct citizens of the United States in marksmanship;
(2) To promote practice and safety in the use of firearms;
(3) To conduct competitions in the use of firearms and to award trophies, prizes, badges, and other insignia to competitors.
The law specifically states: In carrying out the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the corporation shall give priority to activities that benefit firearms safety, training, and competition for youth and that reach as many youth participants as possible.
The firearms used MUST be USGI Military issue or civilian equivalent. The law also directs the army to turn surplus military weapons over to the CMP to be sold to citizens of the US, to fund the CMP programs.
So in reality Congress commands the CMP to sell and instruct citizens (including kids) in the use of the same weapons they are trying to ban.
Originally Posted by hardworker
Defense, yes they could be used for. I'm not debating that. That's exactly what they were made for. Killing people.
All guns were made for killing people. Every advancement made in small arms were motivated by trying to gain a military advantage.
Those precious bolt-action rifles the hunters hold near and dear? All begat from the Mauser 88 Commision rifle and refined in what became the 98 Mauser. It and it's derivatives were used to kill millions starting in the late 19th Century through the 20th and into the 21st. Every bolt gun made since 1898 was either a blatent copy or modified copy of it.
Step back to an earlier era. The lever-action repeater? That hunters also have a warm spot for? They were attempts at military small arms superiorority too. From the Henry rifle to the Winchester 1873 were arms companies attempts to gain a military advantage. Both Henry and later Winchestwer triesd to sell the army on repeaters....... for combat use.......to kill people with. The military didn't get them mainly due to the complicated mechanisms. However, most students of history are well aware that there were units in the Civil War armed with Henry repeaters and Spencer repeater.
Every weapon ever fashioned from a rock, to a spear, bow & arrow, sword dirk, dagger, sling to the powder burners were all originally designed to kill people. They also killed animal for food, clothing and protection.
So your arguement doesn't wash. An AR is no different from a Garand, from a Springfield, from a Mauser, from a Krag, from a Spencer, from a Winchester from a Henry. The only thing different is the operating mechanism and that's not new either. Semi-auto rifles and pistols have been in use for more than 100 years. It's just a part of the evolution that comes with technological advancement.
The 2nd Amendment exists to give us small arms parity with the standing military and govt forces.
Last edited:
All guns were made for killing people
Horse pucky.
My Super Match M1A was build for one thing. High Power Rifle Shooting, poking little holes in paper targets working me toward my distinguished rifle badge and got me there.
I had a Single barreled Ithaca trap gun, 34 inch barrel. Super tight choke, only good for breaking little clay targets.
Same with my Ithaca 600 only it was a double barreled skeet gun, only good for skeet shooting, neither of these guns even had safeties.
My model 70s, Featherweights, 257 Rbts and 270 Win. were designed for hunting not shooting people.
My 416 Rigby is not something one would pack tracking down people.
I have a Model 52 S&W wad cutter gun, it will only function with and shoot super mild 38 WC bullets seated flush. Good only for punching holes in paper as in Bullseye Shooting. Try to beef up the loads and it would jam. Not a people shooting gun by a long shot.
Same with my Anschutz M-1807 single shot 22 TARGET rifle. Its a Standard Rifle built for ISU position shooting, not shooting people.
I could go on and on but you get the point.
Saying guns are only for shooting people is feeding the trolls.
Why can't people understand that guns can be nothing more then a sporting implement just like golf clubs, tennis rackets, bowling balls etc.
Not all guns are made for shooting people.
I DO NOT WANT mentally unstable people being able to purchase weapons of any type. so YES, I want a more complete background check
I agree as well , how ever there is a HUGE but in there .
1) What is the legal definition of mentally unstable .
2) Who gets to write that definition ? ( the government )
3) How do we find these people ? do we expand the patriot act so the government can watch ,listen, tap and read all of your correspondence and private writings .
4) Who's to say I'm crazy and not just eccentric .
5) there are all kinds of people that at first glance seem like they should not be operating a firearm but would never go shoot up a school or use them in a malicious way . Should they not have the right to defend them selves ?
6) would one ever be able to earn there way off the list ?
This could go on and on . I think to have a real working , almost nobody slips through the cracks mentally unstable back ground check . We would have to give up quite a bit of privacy rights .
Last edited:
Horse pucky.
My Super Match M1A was build for one thing. High Power Rifle Shooting,
And the progenitor of your Super Match M1A was what? That's right, the select-fire M-14 rifle that was the standard military issue rifle for about 10 years give or take.
Your rifle was specifically made in semi-auto because of the BATFEces rule about once a machinegun, always a machinegun or whatever rule they're making up this week.
Of course you aren't going to use it on people, but my point is that they were all designed initially for a martial purpose and anything "sporting" came after the fact. The black rifle owners have the same 2A right to own their guns as the elitist hunters have to own theirs.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
stevelyn, i agree with you.. however, but kraigwy point wasn't that.
There are plenty of rimfire firearms that have no business being made for defense or assault.
His main point however was that HIS specific M1A was made to be purchased by a civilian. It's purpose was to be designated by the owner, and thus that rifle's purpose is to shoot paper.
There are plenty of rimfire firearms that have no business being made for defense or assault.
His main point however was that HIS specific M1A was made to be purchased by a civilian. It's purpose was to be designated by the owner, and thus that rifle's purpose is to shoot paper.
TheoShooter
New member
All my guns were made to poke holes in targets, hit clay birds, knock over tin cans, hit metal targets,etc, etc,etc. you mean I could kill someone with them?
Well lets see the economy will lose a good bit of jobs so add that to the unemployment rate. Think about it, the companies that aren't on military contracts will go under. Competition will take a hit including high cap mags because that's ultimately a big concern of the anti-gunners. I want it not only because i enjoy shooting my ARs. Call me paranoid or whatever but i want my ARs, and i've done nothing wrong to lead to them being taken away from me.
Last edited by a moderator: