The future of the AR-15

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

Post Reply
User avatar
Bobby
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Bobby » Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:50 pm

I`ll just say this:you can`t buy handgrenades legally in Sweden,but they still get used by criminals pretty often.
You`ll toughen up.Unless you have a serious medical condition commonly refered to as
"being a pussy".

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by dead man walking » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:25 pm

what, no guns!
At least five people were stabbed, with some injured critically, during clashes between rallying neo-Nazis and counter-protesters at the Capitol in Sacramento on Sunday
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5120
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:26 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Gene wrote:
Grandpa's Spells wrote:Why so triggered? Nafod's statement was factual.
His statement is one of opinion. You like his opinion. There is a lot of controversy about what the "Second Amendment" means, even among scholars.
That the NRA protects one interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, and that this interpretation is relatively new, isn't opinion. The changing history of the NRA's opinion on gun control is there to read.
Bullshit, Troy.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
For Coxe, the 1808 Act was an ideal opportunity to use federal resources to help build a strong domestic firearms industry. Coxe's letters to Secretary of War William Eustis set forth the relation between the industry and an armed populace. To defeat a standing army, a populace must be well armed:

"No part of Europe will permit us to obtain arms from them.... A general armament for the purpose of a general stand is a measure... worthy of consideration. The omnipresence of the public force is the consequence of a general armament. The skill of modern regular armies require the mass of the population to be equipped for resisting the potent invaders of this time."

Sales of arms to the public would not only arm them, but would also generate industry advances:

"A decided tone, a good inspection, good patterns and in short much care, pains and vigilance are necessary to procure substantial Arms from public & private Armories. If sales to the Militia & private persons [&] to ships should at any time be desired and practicable, it would keep up the manufacture and enable us to improve the standard quality.

In a circular to contracting gunsmiths, Coxe emphasized: "The importance of good arms is manifest.... The lives of our fellow citizens, to whom the use of them is committed, depend upon the excellence of their arms." In his correspondence with manufacturers and inspectors, Coxe demonstrated great technical expertise in the design and manufacture of muskets, rifles, pistols, and swords.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_coxe.htm

The US had multiple insurrections - Shay's Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Fries's Rebellion, Dorr's Rebellion.

Congress did not call for gun control.

The States did call for gun control. After Turner's Rebellion various southern States made possession of firearms by blacks, free or slave, punishable by death. The first 'Saturday night special' law was passed in the south. The Sullivan Act, which disarmed Italians and "other immigrants" was promoted in Albany.

Congress could not call for gun control until after Wickard vs Filburn "empowered" them to regulate firearms. The National Firearms Act did not ban firearms. They mandated a special "Occupational Tax" be put on such firearms. The first "sweeping" gun control law was the GCA of 1968.

The NRA adapted to the threat of Congress persons in "restrictive" States applying their stupid shit onto freer States.

New Jersey and Illinois can stew in their own juices for all I care. If they want it, fine. Don't impose that stupid shit on my State is all I ask.
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5120
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:31 pm

dead man walking wrote:what, no guns!
At least five people were stabbed, with some injured critically, during clashes between rallying neo-Nazis and counter-protesters at the Capitol in Sacramento on Sunday
Shiiit.... Knife wielding attackers killed 29 and wounded 130 in China a few years back.
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5120
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:31 pm

Biggest mass murder in US history by one person was done with a can of gasoline. Happy Land Dance studio fire.

Worse mass shooting in the US was by the US Army and "Indian Agents" at Wounded Knee. They were trying to disarm the Lakota Sioux... "for their own good". Managed to kill 150 of them. Twenty US soldiers were given the Medal of Honor for their participation in this crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5120
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:42 pm

nafod wrote:
Herv100 wrote:Nafod and Spells wish they could sign this. Like with the 2nd Amendment, they want infinite do-overs until they get their way because they're special

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... ndum-reru/
I don't have to sign anything. Since Heller, the various circuits have repeatedly ruled assault weapon bans are OK, and SCOTUS (with Scalia on the bench) has repeatedly and visibly decided not to listen to the pathetic mewings of the NRA-sponsored attempts to challenge.
[/quote]

Same Courts which in the past approved "Returning" slaves caught in free states (Dredd Scott), said that Civil Forfeiture was Constitutional, stealing people's land to give to private entities (Kelo vs New London) and so on. Politics from the bench.

The asinine reasoning "Assault weapons are used in mass shootings" is patent bullshit. The public is being conditioned to associate the firearms with violence. There are at least 10,000,000 AR 15 type rifles in private hands. Where are all of the mass shootings if this device is so good at mass shooting?

Here's the punch line - most mass shootings are carried out with handguns. The reasoning that works for "assault weapons" works for handguns. More so. That's my personal stake in the whole thing. Cause that was the whole point of the controversy, to create a legal precedent for banning handguns.

Good luck confiscating over 70 million handguns. Please don't deny that confiscation is being considered - California budgeted money for confiscating firearms this year. If they're putting aside the bread, they're gonna do the deed.
This space for let

Boris
Top
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Boris » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:25 pm

Boris wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Schlegel wrote:What do you guys think....... Anybody want to take bets on the result?

The price of an AR will go up.
Gun sales will skyrocket... again.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/16/investi ... s-orlando/

TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by TerryB » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:13 pm

I'm starting to come around to the liberal point of view on this. Clearly the Republican-backed NRA is instigating mass shootings to boost gun industry profits.
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by nafod » Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:22 pm

Gene wrote:...
Image
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Yes I Have Balls
Top
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Yes I Have Balls » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:31 pm

TerryB wrote:I'm starting to come around to the liberal point of view on this. Clearly the Republican-backed NRA is instigating mass shootings to boost gun industry profits.
Mass shooters aim guns at Americans and the NRA helps put the guns in their hands. Conservatives get upset when this is pointed out.

*shrug*

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10833
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:36 pm

nafod wrote:
Gene wrote:...
Image
100x =D>
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by dead man walking » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:40 pm

i've adopted a scalia-like originalist view on the 2d amendment. when the founding privileged white guys wrote the bill of rights, "arms" referred to muskets.

so yeah, you can have muskets.

those guys never anticipated what "arms" have come to mean today, and so today's weapons are not properly covered by the 2d amendment, under a strict originalist interpretation.

if you all want to be some kind of activist constitutional interpreter, you have to accept the broad consequences of your position.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Herv100 » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:50 pm

Yes I Have Balls wrote:
TerryB wrote:I'm starting to come around to the liberal point of view on this. Clearly the Republican-backed NRA is instigating mass shootings to boost gun industry profits.
Mass shooters who are registered democrats aim guns at Americans and the NRA members don't commit mass shootings. Liberals get upset when this is pointed out.

*shrug*
Fixed it for you
Image

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by nafod » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:52 pm

Image
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7817
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by johno » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 pm

dead man walking wrote:i've adopted a scalia-like originalist view on the 2d amendment.

...

those guys never anticipated what "arms" have come to mean today, and so today's weapons are not properly covered by the 2d amendment, under a strict originalist interpretation.

if you all want to be some kind of activist constitutional interpreter, you have to accept the broad consequences of your position.

Then get off the internet, Comrade. Confine your posts to ink & quill!
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by dead man walking » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:05 pm

i challenge your logic.

the means of enjoying the first amendment are not prescribed, and further, we know (and seem to accept) that some forms of speech are not constitutionally protected, e.g. commercial speech, fighting words, and child porn. therefore, limiting the definition of arms to those available at the time of the drafting of the bill of rights is not the same as limiting our the means of speech, which is not a matter the constitution addresses.

the constitution says you musketeers may swashbuckle. more than that, afraid not, unless you embrace an activist judiciary.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

Boris
Top
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Boris » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:27 pm

All I know is that this thread (and watching 13 Hours and the latest attack in Turkey) has made me want to buy an AR-15... like RIGHT NOW.

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Herv100 » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:01 pm

You should get one
Image

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7817
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by johno » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:54 pm

dead man walking wrote:i challenge your logic.

the means of enjoying the first amendment are not prescribed, and further, we know (and seem to accept) that some forms of speech are not constitutionally protected, e.g. commercial speech, fighting words, and child porn. therefore, limiting the definition of arms to those available at the time of the drafting of the bill of rights is not the same as limiting our the means of speech, which is not a matter the constitution addresses.

the constitution says you musketeers may swashbuckle. more than that, afraid not, unless you embrace an activist judiciary.

Sorry. I can't take you seriously.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5120
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:54 pm

nafod wrote:
Gene wrote:...
Image

Damn! Don't know how it fires 'em but it's a righteous picture.
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5120
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:01 am

dead man walking wrote:i challenge your logic.

the means of enjoying the first amendment are not prescribed, and further, we know (and seem to accept) that some forms of speech are not constitutionally protected, e.g. commercial speech, fighting words, and child porn. therefore, limiting the definition of arms to those available at the time of the drafting of the bill of rights is not the same as limiting our the means of speech, which is not a matter the constitution addresses.

the constitution says you musketeers may swashbuckle. more than that, afraid not, unless you embrace an activist judiciary.
The Constitution said that you have the right to free speech which includes the right to say stupid shit. Nice to see that you're exercising that right to its fullest potential.

Nobody is asking for the right to own nuclear weapons, biological weapons or chemical weapons. The NRA isn't too worried about howitzers, anti-tank rockets or hand grenades. They haven't moved on NFA Class Firearms since the 1990s, when Certiori was denied for the Hughes Machinegun freeze. Most people who want the Class III shit spend the five figures needed to get them. Party on.

All we're talking about are semi-automatic firearms, most of which do not look "assault weapons" but are used in all sorts of legitimate activities. We don't want your gun control types to keep slicing the baloney, year after year, each time some shit bag goes ape shit.


Here's a manufacturer of the New York State compliant AR-15.

http://www.intrepidarmsny.com/
This space for let

Boris
Top
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Boris » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:16 am

Herv100 wrote:You should get one
As for now, I just can't justify the several thousand dollar investment (firearm, storage, ammo, accessories, training).

If the SHTF, you'll be right and I'll be holding off the terrorists w. my Daisy Pal and a samurai sword (I exaggerate, but not by much).

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by dead man walking » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:23 am

johno wrote:
dead man walking wrote:i challenge your logic.

the means of enjoying the first amendment are not prescribed, and further, we know (and seem to accept) that some forms of speech are not constitutionally protected, e.g. commercial speech, fighting words, and child porn. therefore, limiting the definition of arms to those available at the time of the drafting of the bill of rights is not the same as limiting our the means of speech, which is not a matter the constitution addresses.

the constitution says you musketeers may swashbuckle. more than that, afraid not, unless you embrace an activist judiciary.

Sorry. I can't take you seriously.
no need to apologize.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:34 am

dead man walking wrote:
johno wrote:
dead man walking wrote:i challenge your logic.

the means of enjoying the first amendment are not prescribed, and further, we know (and seem to accept) that some forms of speech are not constitutionally protected, e.g. commercial speech, fighting words, and child porn. therefore, limiting the definition of arms to those available at the time of the drafting of the bill of rights is not the same as limiting our the means of speech, which is not a matter the constitution addresses.

the constitution says you musketeers may swashbuckle. more than that, afraid not, unless you embrace an activist judiciary.

Sorry. I can't take you seriously.
no need to apologize.

DMW...you cannot be serious. You've garbled up three of the expression concepts as well. Fighting words is not a "speech"...it's a time place and manner restriction. Child Porn and Commercial speech are about twice as complex.

Your interpretation of the rigidity of the document is more ridiculous than Scalia at his most obtuse. Speech has been extended to "expression" your legal thinking is shit then if you think there's ambiguity as the the intent and meaning of Arms as a means of defense against tyranny.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by dead man walking » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:57 am

well bd, no not entirely serious.

i'm comfortable with my obvious simplications characterizing some speech that is not protected.

as for my interpretation of the consitution being more absurd than scalia at his worst, that's a serious insult. noone could be more absurd than scalia at his worst. not even me.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

Post Reply