Fwiw I have intended to express my opinion, and not deluded myself to think that I will prove opposing opinions foolish. That said I will go on to other things... if it makes you all to feel better, you may think whatever you like
Yes, the Court has ruled a few times on what the allowable protections are, specifically in Miller, Heller and Caetano: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." The Court would be able to take judicial notice (look this up) that an AR-15 would have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore" would "say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon". In DC v Heller: "None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." Caetano v Massachusetts: "PER CURIAM. The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200, and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,”" Now if you can show that AR-15s are not "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" and not having "a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," then perhaps you have a point. You can use this same definition to answer your suitcase nuke question, too. Caetano also tosses out the "Founders didn't know or couldn't envision" argument.
well, according to David Hogg...the Army would immediately surrender because "Who wants to go down the barrel of an AR-15..."
There's already a database somewhere of every military person, and who their family is, and where everyone lives, and another database with every federal law officer, and who their family is, and where they live. To think that this data wouldn't be accessed and published should the government turn on its citizens is naive. If every person you're trying to kill knows where your wife, kids and parents live, would you be quite so ardent in your duties?
It is the ruling of the united state supreme court, which is the final court in the country. Their ruling supersedes and trumps the opinions held by all lower courts that disagree with them. It does not matter what a lower court may say on the matter, they have already been overruled. They were overruled before they ever issued their ruling contrary to that of the united state supreme court.
Just as the founding fathers of the united states could not have anticipated the development of self-contained, metallic ammunition cartridges that did not require sharp pieces of flint to be discharged. But such is not relevant to the discussion, as what they could and could not anticipate makes no difference.
Nostradamos, H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, envisioned many things well before their times. . How was that even possible ?
reality check: The AWB, the Brady Bill NEVER ADVOCATED GUN CONFISCATION FOR ALL LISTED WEAPONS PRIOR TO PASSING OF THE LAW. Once the law was passed, any sale of the listed weapons were illegal and could be legally confiscated. All weapons on the list purchased PRIOR to the passing of the law could not only be kept, but could be legally sold by the owner to anyone they chose.
All true. In addition: The 94 AWB didnt ban any weapons used in any of the publicized mass shootings before, during or after it- none of them were or would have been prevented by it. Now, how is that relevent to the OP again?
I didn't say otherwise, now did I? And since you can't disprove the main point/conclusion of my post, you're just blowing frustrated smoke.
Either you are ignorant of the facts or are lying. FYI: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/ar-15-americas-rifle.html
Both rifles were available during the ban. You could buy the one on the bottom, New, all day long every day. The "ban" only affected cosmetic features..
Also, this rifle was still for sale. A Norwegian killed 70 people with one. It's not banned by the new AWB either.
Im ignorant of plenty of facts, but not here, nor am I lying. Your article is being deliberately disingenous and deceibtful. Ill break it down for you. "Over the ensuing decades, as the American military modified the M16’s exterior to allow for accessories such as sights, grips and flashlights, the civilian market followed. Today, gun enthusiasts consider the AR-15 the Erector Set of firearms. Online message boards, video games and advertisements all provide how-to guides for customizing the rifle. But the guns [which guns?] were taken off shelves after President Bill Clinton signed a law in September 1994 banning what Congress called “assault weapons [assault weapons were defined as having a certain number of 'assault weapon characteristics'- pistol grip, bayonet lug, detatchable magazine, flash suppressor, etc. Semi-auto rifles with all these were banned. Semi-auto rifles with only some of these were not. AR-15s with their flash suppressors and bayonet lugs removed were no longer assault weapons and not banned. Which is, of course, the first thing manufacturers did when the law passed. AR-15s were banned for about a fraction of a second until they were modified to circumvent the bill. They were 'taken off the shelves' to have their flash suppressors removed and then put back on the shelves].” Prompted by a string of mass shootings — including one in 1989 in Stockton, Calif., in which five children were killed and 32 wounded in a schoolyard — the legislation stopped production of civilian rifles like the AR-15, and introduced the term “assault weapons” to the public. But it stops short of directly tying the ban to a decrease in gun violence [because it didn't], and the ban’s broader effect remains in dispute [because the supposed effects are based upon correlation = causation fallacy, aka bad science]. Gun rights advocates say loopholes allowed for the sale of slightly modified versions throughout the ban [still think im lying?]. Its defenders cite law enforcement statistics showing a drop in the criminal use of automatic and semiautomatic weapons during that time [which correlates far more closely with an increase in concealed carry permits than it does with any gun control measures]."
The ignorance is on the part of those behind the article. The AR-15 was defined solely by cosmetic features. Remove the cosmetic features, give it a new designation other than AR-15, and it is no longer prohibited from sale or ownership.
Nice pictures....care to give the make and model? That way, the reader can verify EXACTLY what was on the list and what wasn't. But here's the thing: Given the versatility of the AR-15, gunners orgasm at skirting the ban and having their assault rifle. Here's a better explanation: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/guns-like-the-ar-15-were-never-fully-banned/ So my suggestion is to tweak the old AWB so to add another hamper to nut jobs from getting the weapons you picture here.....and since there are a plethora of weapons available that are equally deadly (as gunners are prone to tell me), the AR-15 is NOT needed by the general public.
thus, tweak the the old AWB so that it is banned....or are you into assault rifle related body counts?
And after that screed, what's your point? Keep the AWB off line, don't bother tweaking it to keep assault rifles and their variations off the general market, and then let nuts continue to do what we've seen in a'la mass shootings in the last 20 years?
DPMS Panther 223 DCM, both guns. See below. One produced prior to the ban, one after. In fact, for your idea to have any effect, you have to ban and confiscate all semi-auto rifles. Why not be honest and argue for that rather than pussyfoot around? Else, the rifle one the left will be illegal to manufacture and sell, the rifle on the left will be legal to manufacture and sell, and both available on the secondary market.
The ArmaLite AR-15 was a select-fire, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964. Designed by American gun manufacturer ArmaLite in 1956, it was based on its AR-10 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight assault rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow the infantrymen to carry more ammunition.[4] In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt due to financial difficulties.[5] After modifications (most notably, the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver),[6] Colt rebranded it the Colt ArmaLite AR-15. Colt marketed the redesigned rifle to various military services around the world and it was subsequently adopted by the U.S. military as the M16 rifle, which went into production in March 1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
