Biden saying now he will defeat the NRA

[JonC]

I thought Biden called the AR15 an assault rifle that he wanted confiscated. Maybe you have correct information on that.

The AR-15 is an assault rifle (it was based on the AR-10) The M-16 series of rifles were adapted from the AR-15.

What you may mean is to distinguish between semi-automatic and automatic rifles. The newer AR-15's for public purchase do not have the burst option. So AR-15's can be assault rifles, but not all are assault rifles.

Per the Defense Intelligence Agency, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” So the difference is (or could be argued) that an AR-15 without a burst function is not an assault rifle while an AR-15 with this function is an assault rifle.

 

[church mouse guy]

The AR-15 is an assault rifle (it was based on the AR-10) The M-16 series of rifles were adapted from the AR-15.

What you may mean is to distinguish between semi-automatic and automatic rifles. The newer AR-15's for public purchase do not have the burst option. So AR-15's can be assault rifles, but not all are assault rifles.

Per the Defense Intelligence Agency, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” So the difference is (or could be argued) that an AR-15 without a burst function is not an assault rifle while an AR-15 with this function is an assault rifle.

Do you have an automatic one? Do you know what militaries in the world use semi-automatic rifles?

 

[JonC]

Do you have an automatic one? Do you know what militaries in the world use semi-automatic rifles?

I do not have an AR-15. The U.S. military uses semi-automatic rifles and automatic rifles. The primary weapon is not fully automatic but has a burst function.

The M110 is a semi-automatic rifle the U.S. military uses....one I'd like to get except I do not enjoy going to the range because I had to for so long. I like shooting pistols (my rifles just collect dust, my son uses the shotguns for shooting clay...he's on the High School shooting team).

 

[church mouse guy]

I do not have an AR-15. The U.S. military uses semi-automatic rifles and automatic rifles. The primary weapon is not fully automatic but has a burst function.

The M110 is a semi-automatic rifle the U.S. military uses....one I'd like to get except I do not enjoy going to the range because I had to for so long. I like shooting pistols (my rifles just collect dust, my son uses the shotguns for shooting clay...he's on the High School shooting team).

AR 15s are used in 1or 2 percent of murders. Most people are murdered with handguns. Biden is a radical. If there is a civil war or a race war, the aggressors are sure to have state of the art weapons. If the public is disarmed, then the police will shoot at will. As Burt Lancaster said in one of his westerns , a lawman is a killer of men.

 

[JonC]

AR 15s are used in 1or 2 percent of murders. Most people are murdered with handguns. Biden is a radical. If there is a civil war or a race war, the aggressors are sure to have state of the art weapons. If the public is disarmed, then the police will shoot at will. As Burt Lancaster said in one of his westerns , a lawman is a killer of men.

I don't think that the Second Amendment addresses whether or not weapons should be banned due to the number of murders committed by the weapon type.

You are going a bit off topic on this part. The issue is if the government can ban one type of weapon from the general public without violating the Second Amendment. And the answer is absolutely. I had a lot of fun with grenade launchers when I was in the military (it was kinda like angry birds). But that does not mean I have the right under the Second Amendment to own one.

I understand that you may be anti-police. But the idea that the people should have guns to prevent the police from shooting at will is not one that can be sustained in any meaningful way. The purpose of the Second Amendment was not so that citizens could fight against local law enforcement.

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't think that the Second Amendment addresses whether or not weapons should be banned due to the number of murders committed by the weapon type.

You are going a bit off topic on this part. The issue is if the government can ban one type of weapon from the general public without violating the Second Amendment. And the answer is absolutely. I had a lot of fun with grenade launchers when I was in the military (it was kinda like angry birds). But that does not mean I have the right under the Second Amendment to own one.

I understand that you may be anti-police. But the idea that the people should have guns to prevent the police from shooting at will is not one that can be sustained in any meaningful way. The purpose of the Second Amendment was not so that citizens could fight against local law enforcement.

I am not anti-police and the second amendment is to protect people from their government and lawmen are killers of men or they are not effective lawmen.

 

[JonC]

I am not anti-police and the second amendment is to protect people from their government and lawmen are killers of men or they are not effective lawmen.

No, the Second Amendment does not link the right to bear arms with the right of people to defend against local law enforcement or murders. It has in focus the rights of people in the context that they are citizens of a state. Having armed citizens is necessary to the security of a free State. It was designed to empower States to prevent the Federal government from becoming what the Federal government has become.

Here is the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Alcott]

No, the general public cannot but a M2 (I already checked).

A2 does not prohibit the government from excluding types of weapons to the general public.

What words in the amendment come to that effect?

 

[JonC]

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not prohibit the government from excluding types of weapons to the general public.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" IS the Second Amendment. Saying I can not purchase a grenade launcher is not infringing on my right to keep and bear Arms (I can still keep and bear Arms, I just cannot buy a grenade launcher even if I desire one).

 

[church mouse guy]

No, the Second Amendment does not link the right to bear arms with the right of people to defend against local law enforcement or murders. It has in focus the rights of people in the context that they are citizens of a state. Having armed citizens is necessary to the security of a free State. It was designed to empower States to prevent the Federal government from becoming what the Federal government has become.

Here is the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

you don’t make any sense. The bloody brits tried to disarm us and abandon us to the savages. Thus the Bill of Rights was forced through to protect citizens from the government. Hitler disarmed the Germans first thing after the enabling act. You seem to support gun control? Where I live the sheriff is a vested interest and thugs don’t wait on the sheriff to arrive anyway. A rifle beats a handgun every time and that is why Biden is going fir rifles. Wake up and smell the Chanel # 5.

 

[Salty]

Well, I do believe in the right to arm bears!

 

[church mouse guy]

And women’s bare arms???

 

[JonC]

you don’t make any sense. The bloody brits tried to disarm us and abandon us to the savages. Thus the Bill of Rights was forced through to protect citizens from the government. Hitler disarmed the Germans first thing after the enabling act. You seem to support gun control? Where I live the sheriff is a vested interest and thugs don’t wait on the sheriff to arrive anyway. A rifle beats a handgun every time and that is why Biden is going fir rifles. Wake up and smell the Chanel # 5.

I am a Constitutionalist. The amendment states " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

We can say that we wish it gave us the right to have any type of weapon we desire but the fact is it does not. We can say it was designed so that citizens had the ability kill the police so that they could not enact their will but it does not.

You do not have a constitutional right to possess whatever weapon you desire.

 

[church mouse guy]

I am a Constitutionalist. The amendment states " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

We can say that we wish it gave us the right to have any type of weapon we desire but the fact is it does not. We can say it was designed so that citizens had the ability kill the police so that they could not enact their will but it does not.

You do not have a constitutional right to possess whatever weapon you desire.

You are putting words into my mouth.

 

[Salty]

I am a Constitutionalist. The amendment states " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

And the Militia are the individuals within the State/Commonwealth.

 

[JonC]

You are putting words into my mouth.

No, I am not. I am not accusing you of saying or implying anything. I figure folks can look to your post to see what you say and mine to see what I say.

 

[JonC]

And the Militia are the individuals within the State/Commonwealth.

Yes, but why do they have the right to bear arms? For their protection against the State or to strengthen the States?

 

[Conan]

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not prohibit the government from excluding types of weapons to the general public.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" IS the Second Amendment. Saying I can not purchase a grenade launcher is not infringing on my right to keep and bear Arms (I can still keep and bear Arms, I just cannot buy a grenade launcher even if I desire one).

No disrespect, but you are wrong again (and again). You cannot have a working grenade. What possible harm can a launcher do without grenades? Yes, it is true you cannot posses working grenades, but you can have non-working, or deactivated grenades. I guess your point was having the combination of the two, but i have seen @ least one launcher for sale. True a working grenade would get you jail time. Your point is kinda moot, it already is illegal to own working grenades.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not prohibit the government from excluding types of weapons to the general public.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" IS the Second Amendment. Saying I can not purchase a grenade launcher is not infringing on my right to keep and bear Arms (I can still keep and bear Arms, I just cannot buy a grenade launcher even if I desire one).

The argument will hinge on what it means to infringe a right and specifically that right. Also, the security of a free state, which should be clearer, and then that the right is directly to the people, not to the state. Then there is the issue of a well regulated militia.

We might question if the states are still free. If not, it could be semantically argued that the right vanishes entirely. Of course, that would be utter nonsense, but is just the sort of argument often proffered.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What I would argue is that “a well regulated militia” and “the security of a free state” are assumed or demanded, and that the right is directly to the people. If there is no “well regulated militia” or the “security of a free state” missing, then the people should re-establish them. It then follows that there can be no limit placed on the weaponry citizens may “keep and bear” in order to deal decisively with whatever might threaten the security of a free state without infringing the right recognized in the second amendment.