Massachusetts: AR-15s are "not within the Constitutional right to bear arms".

[floivanus]

I wasn't comparing a knife's killing potential vs an AR. I was stating a fact that knives on average kill at least 4x more people per year.

Glocks can do the same thing (Vegas being the exception). VT is still the deadliest school shooting. That is exactly what people and Fudds would go after next.

Glock, 8 or 10” 22 tcm barrel and the g18 slide conversion (whichever is the full auto LEO version?) couple 33round or 100 round drums...

Back to dillinger his gun smith illegally converted a 1911 that never had full auto capabilities to a full auto gun; where there’s a will there’s gonna be a way.

And anyone realize that in the Aussie model pump shotguns are banned?

 

[Neph]

And anyone realize that in the Aussie model pump shotguns are banned?

They are not banned, they are considered a Category C weapon which carries the following stipulations:

https://www.police.qld.gov.au/progr...enceApplication/licences/firearms/default.htm

Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns (Category C & D) may also be possessed under a Firearms Licence for some genuine reasons, however sufficient evidence must be provided to justify the need to possess such firearms.

 

[floivanus]

Pen and paper, gtfo of here. Quill and parchment, sent by horseback or carrier pigeon.

Homing pigeons are the ones that were domesticated in the US, the carrier pigeon is the eurasian version.

But we all know what you meant

 

[kenetics]

Yeah, thats gonna lose an appeal

I hope not.

 

[shockaholic12]

I think it’s clear the “militia” referred to in the 2nd amendment is now the group of firearm owning citizens in our country today. People own to protect themselves, their family and neighbors, and their freedoms even if it means using those arms against our own government. They possess guns because they want they ability to protect themselves and their rights in the situations when police or the military would or could not be. It’s a standing militia.

And the 2nd amendment clearly states this militia is not just to be regulated, but “well regulated”. As in to a quite high degree of regulation. So yeah, Massachusetts is correct as far as the thread title is concerned. AR-15s are not a constitutional right IMO. The denial of access to certain weapons falls under that regulation the founding fathers put in the very opening of 2nd.

 

[lilelvis]

That is why I am pro states rights.
The legalization of Marijuana shows states rights do work. Marijuana is still illegal in Federal level but legal in numerous states.
If the vote goes my way or not, does not change my beliefs on State Rights.

I agree, but the constitution should protect the bill of rights from the states too.
That's the idea.

 

[Soul Crusher]

I think it’s clear the “militia” referred to in the 2nd amendment is now the group of firearm owning citizens in our country today. People own to protect themselves, their family and neighbors, and their freedoms even if it means using those arms against our own government. They possess guns because they want they ability to protect themselves and their rights in the situations when police or the military would or could not be. It’s a standing militia.

And the 2nd amendment clearly states this militia is not just to be regulated, but “well regulated”. As in to a quite high degree of regulation. So yeah, Massachusetts is correct as far as the thread title is concerned. AR-15s are not a constitutional right IMO. The denial of access to certain weapons falls under that regulation the founding fathers put in the very opening of 2nd.

Kind of hard to defend your country, yourself, your family and neighbors with a single shot .22.

 

[lilelvis]

have you noticed that when the shooting couple months ago happened, a lot of people went out and protested hard against AR15's and demanding making them illegal, but in the recent one at Santa Fe - where a revolver and shotgun was used - we don't see these massive protests demanding banning shotguns and revolvers....

It's pretty obvious, despite all of the "you could never fight the military, stupid neckbeard" blathering, the whole thing is a propoganda fueled effort to remove citizens means to mount a formidable insurection.
The gubment fears the AR platform for many reasons.

 

[Patrick Carey]

Glock, 8 or 10” 22 tcm barrel and the g18 slide conversion (whichever is the full auto LEO version?) couple 33round or 100 round drums...

Back to dillinger his gun smith illegally converted a 1911 that never had full auto capabilities to a full auto gun; where there’s a will there’s gonna be a way.

And anyone realize that in the Aussie model pump shotguns are banned?

Dillinger actually died a month after the NFA, that full auto 1911 was legal lol

 

[shockaholic12]

Kind of hard to defend your country, yourself, your family and neighbors with a single shot .22.

Sure, just like it was hard for 60+ people to defend themselves in Vegas when one guy can easily roll with an AR with a bumpstock and few dozen other weapons on him.

There’s a middle ground somewhere. But that’s not what I was arguing. I was just stating the state is right, ARs are not a right. If you think they should be you should be looking to change the entire amendment.

 

[7437]

I hope not.

why? its pretty clearly unconstitutional, as per Heller V District of Columbia.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Sure, just like it was hard for 60+ people to defend themselves in Vegas when one guy can easily roll with an AR with a bumpstock and few dozen other weapons on him.

There’s a middle ground somewhere. But that’s not what I was arguing. I was just stating the state is right, ARs are not a right. If you think they should be you should be looking to change the entire amendment.

What does that massacre have to do with anything? Anyone can easily "roll with" any semi auto and kill large amounts of people.

Using your logic, single shot .22s are not a right either.

 

[Deleted member 391673]

Yes, drilling the rivet in either a CA or Canada compliant magazine would restore capacity ANd make you an instant criminal.

There’s a video of a canadian shooting a vz58 on youtibe where he shows the rivet

interesting. so creating clip restrictions will only work on people who follow the law, but psycho mass shooters and other criminals can just ignore it i guess.

 

[shockaholic12]

What does that massacre have to do with anything? Anyone can easily "roll with" any semi auto and kill large amounts of people.

Using your logic, single shot .22s are not a right either.

It has to do with society at this time being as, if not much more, concerned with protecting themselves from other gun owners than a tyrannical government. Are people more fearful of Obama or Trump becoming some fascist dictators and having to fight the military or do they fear more the strange young man in town who owns assault rifles possibly shooting up their business or kids school? I’d say the mass shooter at this point, thus laws will start to reflect that.

It’s not my logic, it’s the writers of the 2nd amendment’s. And yes, technically a .22 isn’t a right under the 2nd because no specific gun is. A right to firearms in general is specified, but so is a highly regulated approach to that right. Regulation of single shot .22s is not as stringent as ARs for obvious reasons, but regulating them isn’t unconstitutional.

 

[Soul Crusher]

interesting. so creating clip restrictions will only work on people who follow the law, but psycho mass shooters and other criminals can just ignore it i guess.

That's right. It's a complete joke to limit magazines to 5 rounds. The laws are so stupid here that you can use this in your AR-15.

Because it has pistol printed on it, you can legally shoot 10 rounds from an AR or any rifle that accepts this mag or is modified to accept it. Pistol mags are limited to 10 rounds.


Most laws in Canada and ones that are going to be introduced are made to deter people from owning firearms.

By the way if you're Canadian, sign the petition to scrap C-71!

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1608

 

[spamking]

I don't have pics of his stuff but..

^Kinda similar to this

I love my AR pistols . . . especially with the new SB Tactical SBA3 brace.

 

[spamking]

Just buy 80% finished guns and you don't have to register them. Then just fine a CNC machine or a machinist to finish the gun. Problem solved.

Can't have anyone finish it for you . . . the buyer must complete it on their own.

Just get one of the jigs and you're set.

 

[Soul Crusher]

It has to do with society at this time being as, if not much more, concerned with protecting themselves from other gun owners than a tyrannical government. Are people more fearful of Obama or Trump becoming some fascist dictators and having to fight the military or do they fear more the strange young man in town who owns assault rifles possibly shooting up their business or kids school? I’d say the mass shooter at this point, thus laws will start to reflect that.

It’s not my logic, it’s the writers of the 2nd amendment’s. And yes, technically a .22 isn’t a right under the 2nd because no specific gun is. A right to firearms in general is specified, but so is a highly regulated approach to that right. Regulation of single shot .22s is not as stringent as ARs for obvious reasons, but regulating them isn’t unconstitutional.

I think they fear they will be disarmed by warped progressive libs because of these mass shooters. They are not using assault rifles by the way.

A well regulated militia. What you're posting is most certainly your progressive logic. You just said small arms are not a right.

 

[IndyCovaHart]

Also I don't get this "military weapon" argument. The second was literally made to defend the right of the citizens to hold military weapons of the day.

No.

Muskets or nothing.

 

[7437]

The gubment fears the AR platform for many reasons.