Why are AR-15 weapons Ok?

[CID1990]

Around here you can't hunt deer with an AR and .223 is considered too small to hunt deer - inhumane. Of course, here's a pretty populated area and not a lot of hills, so there is rightfully concern for errant shots.

Deer are about the size of people and .223 works fine on people - at the range this one was being used ball ammo will penetrate a telephone pole

I remember as a kid my dad wouldn’t let me hunt with the M1 carbine... too small a round, inhumane

[HI54UNI]

[grizzaholic]

Deer are about the size of people and .223 works fine on people - at the range this one was being used ball ammo will penetrate a telephone pole

I remember as a kid my dad wouldn’t let me hunt with the M1 carbine... too small a round, inhumane

Use something like a 60 gr partition and shoot all the deer you want.

[JohnStOnge]

The Second Amendment clearly refers to military arms. It's actually not even limited to guns. It is talking about the arms that would be associated with a militia that could be called up to fight in wars. Back then that would've included things like cannons.

As Cid has said, if you have a problem with what the Second Amendment says you should be pressing to Amend the Constitution to change its effect. This thing of acting like it refers to limited weaponry is intellectually dishonest. Something like an AR-15 is clearly within the scope of "arms." Frankly, fully automatic weapons are within that scope as well as a lot of other things.

We've been playing a game on this thing for decades. The Federal government doing something like banning private ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic weapons, for example, is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment. And if we don't like that we ought to quit playing games and Amend the Constitution.

[Ibanez]

The Second Amendment clearly refers to military arms. It's actually not even limited to guns. It is talking about the arms that would be associated with a militia that could be called up to fight in wars. Back then that would've included things like cannons.

As Cid has said, if you have a problem with what the Second Amendment says you should be pressing to Amend the Constitution to change its effect. This thing of acting like it refers to limited weaponry is intellectually dishonest. Something like an AR-15 is clearly within the scope of "arms." Frankly, fully automatic weapons are within that scope as well as a lot of other things.

We've been playing a game on this thing for decades. The Federal government doing something like banning private ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic weapons, for example, is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment. And if we don't like that we ought to quit playing games and Amend the Constitution.

It's clearly military arms? Not personal weapons? Really?

[Grizalltheway]

The Second Amendment clearly refers to military arms. It's actually not even limited to guns. It is talking about the arms that would be associated with a militia that could be called up to fight in wars. Back then that would've included things like cannons.

As Cid has said, if you have a problem with what the Second Amendment says you should be pressing to Amend the Constitution to change its effect. This thing of acting like it refers to limited weaponry is intellectually dishonest. Something like an AR-15 is clearly within the scope of "arms." Frankly, fully automatic weapons are within that scope as well as a lot of other things.

We've been playing a game on this thing for decades. The Federal government doing something like banning private ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic weapons, for example, is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment. And if we don't like that we ought to quit playing games and Amend the Constitution.

So what does the well-regulated part mean?

[GannonFan]

The Second Amendment clearly refers to military arms. It's actually not even limited to guns. It is talking about the arms that would be associated with a militia that could be called up to fight in wars. Back then that would've included things like cannons.

As Cid has said, if you have a problem with what the Second Amendment says you should be pressing to Amend the Constitution to change its effect. This thing of acting like it refers to limited weaponry is intellectually dishonest. Something like an AR-15 is clearly within the scope of "arms." Frankly, fully automatic weapons are within that scope as well as a lot of other things.

We've been playing a game on this thing for decades. The Federal government doing something like banning private ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic weapons, for example, is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment. And if we don't like that we ought to quit playing games and Amend the Constitution.

It's clearly military arms? Not personal weapons? Really?

Forget it, like on most other things he's lost it. He already argued that personal ownership of nuclear weapons are allowed under the 2nd amendment - his posts are almost enough evidence to get a medical intervention to prevent him from owning a weapon.

[Ibanez]

The Second Amendment clearly refers to military arms. It's actually not even limited to guns. It is talking about the arms that would be associated with a militia that could be called up to fight in wars. Back then that would've included things like cannons.

As Cid has said, if you have a problem with what the Second Amendment says you should be pressing to Amend the Constitution to change its effect. This thing of acting like it refers to limited weaponry is intellectually dishonest. Something like an AR-15 is clearly within the scope of "arms." Frankly, fully automatic weapons are within that scope as well as a lot of other things.

We've been playing a game on this thing for decades. The Federal government doing something like banning private ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic weapons, for example, is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment. And if we don't like that we ought to quit playing games and Amend the Constitution.

So what does the well-regulated part mean?

I think that has to do with time. Or an actual well.

[Ibanez]

It's clearly military arms? Not personal weapons? Really?

Forget it, like on most other things he's lost it. He already argued that personal ownership of nuclear weapons are allowed under the 2nd amendment - his posts are almost enough evidence to get a medical intervention to prevent him from owning a weapon.

I must've missed the nuclear weapon post.

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, look at the language:

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.

Now, I can understand the questions about the impact of the language "A well regulated militia" in terms of whether or not it means a personal right to bear arms or if it means a right to bear arms if you're in a well regulated militia. But when it comes to the "Arms" being referenced they're clearly military arms. There are no limits. It doesn't say Arms except for..."

Obviously there weren't things like nuclear arms back then. But if you just stick with what's being referenced it includes all Arms. Yes, in today's context, nuclear weapons would be included.

I'm not saying that a "right of the people to keep and bear" nuclear weapons is a good thing. But nuclear weapons are Arms. And there's nothing in the Second Amendment to suggest that any particular KIND of Arms is excluded. What does it say? If you disagree with me, please reference the language in the Second Amendment that says any particular types of Arms are excluded.

We are where we are because over the years we've played games instead of doing what was intended. What was intended was that, as times dictated a need to amend the Constitution, we would amend the Constitution. Instead, we have "interpreted" it to mean things it obviously doesn't mean.

[houndawg]

You guys are missing the point: the second amendment is obsolete. We no longer rely on a well-regulated militia since we decided to go the standing armies and foreign entanglements route...

[Col Hogan]

You guys are missing the point: the second amendment is obsolete. We no longer rely on a well-regulated militia since we decided to go the standing armies and foreign entanglements route...

OK, what do you think should happen then? The Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution.

[JohnStOnge]

Well I have to back off on the nuclear weapons thing because I found an argument to the contrary that on the surface at least appears to me to be credible. If I were to question it I'd have to do some research. It's in the article at http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm and it goes like this:

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

[JohnStOnge]

One statement I'm seeing a lot as I Google around is the statement that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure people would be armed so they could, if necessary, resist the Federal government. Here's an example from Live Science, of all places:

Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Notice that a similar statement is in the language from http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm in my previous post. Here's just that one statement:

he standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny...

So it's referring to military arms. That kind of zaps statements people make about people not needing military weapons. The right to have military weapons to challenge the national government if necessary was exactly what the Amendment is describing. And something like the AR-15 or a fully automatic version of it fits in.

[AZGrizFan]

You guys are missing the point: the second amendment is obsolete. We no longer rely on a well-regulated militia since we decided to go the standing armies and foreign entanglements route...

Dawg doin' a little fishing this morning?

[Chizzang]

You guys are missing the point: the second amendment is obsolete. We no longer rely on a well-regulated militia since we decided to go the standing armies and foreign entanglements route...

Dawg doin' a little fishing this morning?

You have to admit it was a well placed lure...

[grizzaholic]

You guys are missing the point: the second amendment is obsolete. We no longer rely on a well-regulated militia since we decided to go the standing armies and foreign entanglements route...

Dawg doin' a little fishing this morning?

Fishing for a home invasion.....but we all know common sense is always the best option.

Fuck him

AZ...

[houndawg]

You guys are missing the point: the second amendment is obsolete. We no longer rely on a well-regulated militia since we decided to go the standing armies and foreign entanglements route...

OK, what do you think should happen then? The Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution.

Like your appendix is still part of your constitution.

Somewhere along the way we had a change in strategery with respect to our national defense, rendering a militia no longer necessary to the defense of a free state and opening the question of whether citizens need access to arms at all since we now provide for our defense with a standing Army.

[Col Hogan]

OK, what do you think should happen then? The Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution.

Like your appendix is still part of your constitution.

Somewhere along the way we had a change in strategery with respect to our national defense, rendering a militia no longer necessary to the defense of a free state and opening the question of whether citizens need access to arms at all since we now provide for our defense with a standing Army.

Then go for it...try to get it out of the Constitution...I’ll bring the pop corn and root bear...

[houndawg]

Like your appendix is still part of your constitution.

Somewhere along the way we had a change in strategery with respect to our national defense, rendering a militia no longer necessary to the defense of a free state and opening the question of whether citizens need access to arms at all since we now provide for our defense with a standing Army.

Then go for it...try to get it out of the Constitution...I’ll bring the pop corn and root bear...

I'm not advocating for changing the Constitution, I'm just pointing out the real reason for having the second amendment in the first place. It didn't have anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government and everything to do with going easy on the Treasury.

[CID1990]

Then go for it...try to get it out of the Constitution...I’ll bring the pop corn and root bear...

I'm not advocating for changing the Constitution, I'm just pointing out the real reason for having the second amendment in the first place. It didn't have anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government and everything to do with going easy on the Treasury.

Well looky here

Centuries of man hours of scholarly work and debate

Reams of paper in the Federalist Papers

And all we needed was Hizzoner Houndawg to set us all straight

Close the book fellas it’s over

[Gil Dobie]

[houndawg]

I'm not advocating for changing the Constitution, I'm just pointing out the real reason for having the second amendment in the first place. It didn't have anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government and everything to do with going easy on the Treasury.

Well looky here

Centuries of man hours of scholarly work and debate

Reams of paper in the Federalist Papers

And all we needed was Hizzoner Houndawg to set us all straight

Close the book fellas it’s over

I didn't mean to be so sudden. I thought you knew...

I mean, really, how can a militia overthrow a tyrannical gubmint if it's well-regulated by that very gubmint?

[houndawg]

The shooter killed himself.

[Gil Dobie]

The shooter killed himself.

Finished himself. Already had a couple bullets in him and probably would have reached Vegas numbers if this other guy had not intervened when he was reloading.