Is the AR15 going to fade from ownership?

[MrBot]

Without reading all of the posts on this topic I'm of the opinion it is too early to say just where the AR is going. Data from the NRA suggests more & more Americans are against (some) gun laws that do nothing but impede law abiding citizen's right to own firearms. Others tell a different story. We are IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BATTLE--THE ENDING HAS YET TO COME. Pro-2A proponents must do what we can to sway public thinking in what we know is in the right direction. The NRA, at least, claims that approach is working. Much will be determined by our elections. Judgeships some say are crucial in this fight. Our side is currently winning, assuming my opinion to be correct (has been subject to criticism from time to time lol), on those scores with Trump having replaced something like 17% of judges at the federal level in just a little over 2 1/2 years. ..not being a political/judicial expert I at least think a pick from him would have a greater chance of allowing law-abiding citizens the right to Keep & Bear than were the pick made by a Democrat. And thus, the hysteria we see in those who would love nothing better than to impose their draconian & worthless rules on the rest of us. These sadly misinformed clamor for a world that will never be--a world without hate & a world in which the need for self-protection is absent. Their foolhardy ideas will not make the world a better place--quite frankly they would do just the opposite. And for all of this that is why I have just proposed in General Discussion that TFLF do more to educate those regarding our cherished Constitutional right granted us by incredibly wise men over 200 years ago. All can read it under "Sticky: Anti-2A vs Pro-2A Companies". I am proposing in that OP that TFLF establish a Sticky, posted where it can't be missed, alerting all who visit the Forum of those companies, both opposing & those in favor of, our cherished freedom. I would think it highly appropriate TFLF devote a prominent spot at the top of the Main Page educating those who visit just who our friends & enemies are. Quite frankly, ALL GUN RELATED FORUMS SHOULD INITIATE A SIMILAR PRACTICE. Just my two cents. If entities such as TFLF don't do it, who will?

 

[USNRet93]

Trump having replaced something like 40% of judges at the federal level.

trump has replaced 148 judges of the 867 federal judges in the US, including SCOTUS..

Data from the NRA suggests more & more Americans are against gun laws that do nothing but hamper law abiding citizens the right to own firearms.

Overwhelming support for background checks: 83 percent of gun owners nationally support criminal background checks on all sales of firearms, while only 14 percent of gun owners oppose them. There is strong bipartisan agreement on the issue, with 90 percent of Democrat and 81 percent of Republican gun owners in support of background checks.

Kinda depends on who massages the data but certainly higher than 50% of gun owners.

Nobody knows if trump's TV comments will amount to anything but he has stated..'better' BGC and RFL..so..just for info I'm sure you already know..

NOT taking any stand here..just for info..

 

[MrBot]

..appreciate the input USNRet93. OK, then: 17% not 40%. But, anyway, that's 17% we have vs 17% that would have gone the opposite had Hill gotten in. And Trump at least has promised a seat @ the table for the NRA & that's more than the other side would ever do. With Fake News rampant it's sometimes tough figuring out fact from fiction. I'm trying but it's not an easy task.

 

[USNRet93]

I've said it before and say it again..
-Appointed judges may or may not support 'gun control measures' or 'gun rights measures'. I just don't think it's a binary, either-or, zero sum issue.
-the far right and far left are entrenched on gun rights. BUT those percentages are small when compared to the YUGE middle of 'moderates', meaning those that see what the issues/comments/etc are(on gun rights AND other issues, like economic conservatism and social liberalism) and then decide. Many are gun owners(like me).

The large middle ground, like the other 2 sides of the bell curve are upset/worried/angry about the number and frequency of mass and non mass shootings occurring everyday.
Something will happen, maybe...I have NO answers but arming everybody or taking guns from everybody isn't any sort of answer.

With Fake News rampant it's sometimes tough figuring out fact from fiction.

Yes, on both sides of the spectrum....it's ignorant to say one speaks things brought down from the mountain top and another tells lies..

PLUS, the NRA needs to clean it's own house first..they have lost a LOT of credibility with their recent, public messes..They, too, should be looking at coming up with plans/policies/programs that are attractive to the many millions who own guns but do not belong to this organization. 'Some' are just lazy, not involved but many cannot identify with the NRA's(WLP) rhetoric.

 

[kmw1954]

Perspective of a non-owner,

I do not own any AR or AK styled firearms and really have no interest in owning one. I am though a die hard pistol owner and that is where my interests lay.

Even with that I will fight against most any ban, even if only ammunitions. You can all think of me what you may but I will not support Bump Stocks, 100 round Drum Magazines, Fully automatic firearms or personal nuclear weapons. Now if you all want to fight for those things feel free, I won't fight with you but I won't fight against you either.

Recently a good friend and I went to the range and he brought along his collection of AR styled firearms. from rifle to carbine, from 9mm to bottlenecks.

I tried all of them including his 40/70 Trapdoor, which was a brute! Now a few of the AR rifles I enjoyed very much and a couple I did not enjoy at all. It was a great deal of fun to try these firearms. Though this still was not enough to make me decide to go out and purchase one. Would not refuse to go and do this again by any means just have no interest in owning one.

Now if I were located somewhere were there were wild pigs or Coyotes running around that may change my entire perspective.

 

[dahermit]

Perspective of a non-owner,

I do not own any AR or AK styled firearms and really have no interest in owning one. I am though a die hard pistol owner and that is where my interests lay.

Even with that I will fight against most any ban, even if only ammunitions. You can all think of me what you may but I will not support Bump Stocks, 100 round Drum Magazines, Fully automatic firearms or personal nuclear weapons. Now if you all want to fight for those things feel free, I won't fight with you but I won't fight against you either.

Recently a good friend and I went to the range and he brought along his collection of AR styled firearms. from rifle to carbine, from 9mm to bottlenecks.

I tried all of them including his 40/70 Trapdoor, which was a brute! Now a few of the AR rifles I enjoyed very much and a couple I did not enjoy at all. It was a great deal of fun to try these firearms. Though this still was not enough to make me decide to go out and purchase one. Would not refuse to go and do this again by any means just have no interest in owning one.

Now if I were located somewhere were there were wild pigs or Coyotes running around that may change my entire perspective.

You seem to be unaware that the Second Amendment pertains to the right of the people to own military weapons. As a matter of fact, your post did not address guns relative to the Second Amendment at all.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

dahermit, I respectfully suggest that there is no such thing as "guns relative to the Second Amendment." Either that, or all guns are "relative to the Second Amendment." The Second Amendment [supposedly] guarantees us the right to keep and bear "arms" -- ALL arms, not only arms that have military applications. Antonin Scalia made it very clear in the Heller decision that the 2A is an individual right unrelated to militia (military) applications.

You can all think of me what you may but I will not support Bump Stocks, 100 round Drum Magazines, Fully automatic firearms or personal nuclear weapons.

Are you aware of the writings of some of the Founders at around the time the Bill of Rights was being drafted? One, by a Pennsylvanian named Tench Coxe, sums it up rather well:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans."​

"... and every other terrible implement of the soldier." Back then, that basically meant swords, muskets, and the occasional cannon ... and, back then, often the town militia's cannon was owned and provided by the local squire. Today, I think this tells us that the intent of the 2A was for the People to be able to own arms sufficient to resist a tyrannical government. If that means machine guns, tanks, howitzers, and F-16s ... so be it.

 

[rickyrick]

For a good part of my life, handguns were the most heavily regulated. You couldn’t even carry one to defend yourself. This day and age we have been granted limited permission by various governments to carry outside the home; that’s if we jump the right hoops and pay the required fees. It is still inconvenient to carry in much of the country.

The second amendment is a brief and to-the-point line of text that’s easy to understand with a minimal amount of comprehension skills, yet it’s one of the most heavily regulated civil rights. The reason these regulations are in place and remain in place is simple. The regulations exist because even among gun owners, we can’t come to agreement as to what weapons we should be allowed to keep and bear.
We also compartmentalize ourselves and we do not care about gun restrictions as long as they do not involve our individual interests or location.

Unlike other political movements, we won’t fight outside our compartment or level of firearm interest. We won’t fight for the rights of someone else. In fact, many gun owners are uncomfortable with the thought of any law abiding citizen owning firearms. They feel that only the privileged should own guns.

 

[kmw1954]

I am fully aware of what the 2nd Amendment means and stands for.

I also believe that just because something is available that it is a good idea to have them.

Nuclear weapons are available so should everyone that wants one be allowed to possess one? Is that a reasonable idea? Biological and Chemical weapons are also available should we allow those to everyone also?

If you honestly believe that is so then you and I will never see eye to eye. I don't care what the Constitution says.

 

[SIGSHR]

The real goal is to create a Surveillance and Snitch Society.

 

[dahermit]

I am fully aware of what the 2nd Amendment means and stands for.

I also believe that just because something is available that it is a good idea to have them.

Nuclear weapons are available so should everyone that wants one be allowed to possess one? Is that a reasonable idea? Biological and Chemical weapons are also available should we allow those to everyone also?

If you honestly believe that is so then you and I will never see eye to eye. I don't care what the Constitution says.

I have always interpreted the term "arms" in Second Amendment to mean any arms normally carried by individual soldiers. Enlarging the argument by evoking the "nuclear weapons" argument is but an example of a straw man logical fallacy as well as reductio ad absurdum.
When you say, "I don't care what the Constitution says." That says it all.

 

[ATN082268]

Nuclear weapons are available so should everyone that wants one be allowed to possess one? Is that a reasonable idea? Biological and Chemical weapons are also available should we allow those to everyone also?

So, are you equating weapons of mass destruction like nuclear and biological weapons with things like AR-15s and concealed carry?

 

[sundog]

"I don't care what the Constitution says."

Therein lies the rub. For many of us who have taken the oath to "protect and defend", there is no cherry picking.

 

[kmw1954]

"... and every other terrible implement of the soldier." Back then, that basically meant swords, muskets, and the occasional cannon ... and, back then, often the town militia's cannon was owned and provided by the local squire. Today, I think this tells us that the intent of the 2A was for the People to be able to own arms sufficient to resist a tyrannical government. If that means machine guns, tanks, howitzers, and F-16s ... so be it.

No I believe you all heard it first here in post #47 so if that statement is fair and true then extending it all the way out is also fair and true!

 

[zukiphile]

"... and every other terrible implement of the soldier." Back then, that basically meant swords, muskets, and the occasional cannon ... and, back then, often the town militia's cannon was owned and provided by the local squire. Today, I think this tells us that the intent of the 2A was for the People to be able to own arms sufficient to resist a tyrannical government. If that means machine guns, tanks, howitzers, and F-16s ... so be it.

No I believe you all heard it first here in post #47 so if that statement is fair and true then extending it all the way out is also fair and true!

Emphasis in original.

Do you understand that people now privately own machine guns, tanks, howitzers and fighter jets (MiGs came on the market several years ago)?

Do you object to private ownership of tanks, howitzers or fighter jets?

You can all think of me what you may but I will not support Bump Stocks, 100 round Drum Magazines, Fully automatic firearms or personal nuclear weapons. Now if you all want to fight for those things feel free, I won't fight with you but I won't fight against you either.

I land on this somewhat differently. I do care what the Constitution says. I think bumpfire stocks are hokey and stupid, and I don't want a 100 round magazine. That said, I'll argue your right to have those. Your right to 100 round magazines is the same as my right to have 20 round magazines and five round magazines. Your right to a bumpfire stock is all part of the same right as my right to have an adjustable length stock. When I defend the right to things I don't care for, I am also defending the right to things I do like.

I liked Virgil's Aeneid and Tom Clancy's Without Remorse. I hated Rand's The Fountainhead. Yet if the Congress contemplated a ban on The Fountainhead, I'd argue against that ban. The power to ban The Fountainhead is the same as the power to ban the Aeneid.

 

[kmw1954]

All right 2nd Amendment says!

I'm guessing by these comments that everyone also believe that convicted felons should not lose their 2nd Amendment Rights or should regain them after they have completed their sentence.

No where has the Constitution or the Bill of Rights made allowance for the gov't. to remove anyone's right to own or possess firearms yet it happens every day because of a court action/law! So is that law also Unconstitutional? Do convicted felons get to keep their rights?

 

[zukiphile]

No where has the Constitution or the Bill of Rights made allowance for the gov't. to remove anyone's right to own or possess firearms yet it happens every day because of a court action/law! So is that law also Unconstitutional? Do convicted felons get to keep their rights?

Convicted felons have received due process.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Emphasis added.

 

[kmw1954]

Where in there does that state forfeiture of CIVIL RIGHTS?

 

[zukiphile]

Where in there does that state forfeiture of CIVIL RIGHTS?

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Emphasis added.

Those words mean that with due process, a person can be deprived of those things.

 

[MrBot]

..I have NO answers but arming everybody or taking guns from everybody isn't any sort of answer.

Originally from USNRet93 Post 44

But wouldn't you agree that if more law-abiding citizens were competent with their firearms, carried routinely & Gun Free Zones minimized it would be more difficult for lawless shootings to occur? Wouldn't the perp more likely be neutralized more rapidly?