AR-15's are NOT designed to kill

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Cowards weapon... designed to run away at top speed unless sanctioned in the field for military use under heavy fire requiring high manuverability. Why would a civilian need such portability for such a weapon?

To defend themselves against a government that no longer represents them or acknowledges the God given rights as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

originally posted by: Mirthful Me

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Cowards weapon... designed to run away at top speed unless sanctioned in the field for military use under heavy fire requiring high manuverability. Why would a civilian need such portability for such a weapon?

To defend themselves against a government that no longer represents them or acknowledges the God given rights as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What you have expressed is what I have thought for quite some time, but you may want to read this to give you a different perspective.

www.truth-out.org...

The 2nd amendment is not about protecting ourselves from tyrannical government, it's about protecting the government itself because the US constitution actually limits it's ability to create a standing army.

The people/militia should be our fighting forces and our current military is the force of tyranny we should be worried about.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Phage

What does it have to do with what you can buy?

Here is the Full Quotation.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

To begin with.

License,permits UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As they violate this:

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The background check violates the 14th as well.

Because failure to pass the state requirements denies EQUAL protection under the law.

Don't you want to repeal the 14th?

Should I ?

Interesting enough the 14th only seems to apply to illegal immigrants, and not gun owners.

I wonder WHY that is.

Interesting that you should write this. I went to my LGS to purchase a Father's Day gift of an AR and get my wife a hand gun. Well, she got denied on the hand gun and now I'm not allowed to purchase until she either dies, gets divorced, or clears up her reasons for denial. All because she got caught with drugs many many years ago, and paid a lawyer to have her record expunged.
Still trying to figure out this whole "not to be infringed" thing. Somehow, I had to pledge on the bible to uphold the constitution for my job, yet now the very amendments I am supposed to uphold, are not available to me. Funny.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: 00018GE

So anybody who hunts with an AR-15 is an evil sadistic bastard, winging forest animals left and right only to watch them suffer?

TBH, I won't hunt deer with .223/5.56 because it's too light a round and DOES have a high potential to wound.

a reply to: introvert

Thanks, but I'll take Madison and the Federalist Papers (No.'s 10, 47 & 51) over the liberal/progressive/statist/Marxist tripe at Truth-out...

The standing army (our military in it's entirety, plus all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies) ship has sailed, and I expect in what is left of my lifetime that all that unconstitutional federal power will be brought to bear on the citizenry... It is inevitable, liberty and freedom have been squandered in the name of "security," and the plague that is human nature has seized the opportunity to subjugate the one glimmering hope for mankind.

Only the reincarnation of Cincinnatus can save us now...

a reply to: Mirthful Me

In your first post in this thread you said:

When it comes time to refresh a certain parched tree, the citizenry must have the very finest instruments to accomplish that task...

But I'm responding to this:

To defend themselves against a government that no longer represents them or acknowledges the God given rights as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

Now the question is: based on the 2nd, should citizens have the right to same hardware (weaponry) as the military?

a reply to: rollanotherone

He threw article 6 in my face trying to justify his position. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The crap pertains to treaties and foreign agreements but he claimed it gives federal supremacy in all laws governing citizens. He's full of home brew.

a reply to: Liquesence

Answered before asked...

At the time the Constitution was written, there was civilian ownership of field and naval artillery, explosives anything and everything that constitutes an 18th century arsenal... There were no limits on what could be owned, it was a matter of the citizen's purse and priorities. The thought that the Founding Fathers would have no concept of advancements in weaponry, and would not have crafted the Second Amendment if they "only knew" is laughable. They would be the first to stockpile everything that modernity has to offer, and would endure every hoop and unconstitutional barrier the BATFE places between the citizenry and the rightful liberty that has been divinely delivered to the citizens of this once great nation.

Consider this, who was more imperiled by the Second Amendment than the Founding fathers themselves? Post revolution colonial America wasn't all unicorn farts and fairy turds... There were a lot of pro British colonists and they were armed, and it was little more than twenty years and the British would be back. Did we restrict who and what? No... The conviction of an agreed to Constitution and Bill of Rights was GREATER than the personal peril... We have lost that conviction.

Before the obligatory straw man "so, does that mean a citizen should be able to have a nuclear bomb?"

Sure... Why not? If a citizen could manage to somehow assemble one through legally obtained materials, I say go for it.

The reality is, that no one is going to be able to swing that, so save Gates or Zuckerberg buying a black market device, I'd say the argument is moot.

a reply to: introvert

You are correct in that a standing army was never authorized for more than 2 years financing. A navy, yes but not a standing army. They were required to use state melitias for national defense.

a reply to: CharlesT

No they weren't. They were required to either authorize another two years, to coincide with the House of Representatives elections, or not authorize another two years.

They weren't "required" to use militia.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I bow to your superior wisdom and stand corrected.

a reply to: 00018GE

Are you serious? What do you think a gun is made to do? Drive nails into the wall? You sound like my brother, he will try to convince you of his point no matter how warped the logic.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

"There is more to it though.....But the real deal is that the thing was not created to kill, it was created to put food on the table of the guys who produced it."

So that food on the table you were talking about, how's it livin? Good life there? If it wasn't "killed" then I don't get it...

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Yeah, and your link is the post I previously quoted.

However, you did not answer the question I asked, but explained the historical context of when the words were written.

I am simply curious about your opinion regarding the current time, and my intention was not to go the absurd route of logic of "should a nuke therefore be able to be possessed by a citizen," but to see your opinion of the extent of those things that citizens should be able to bear.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

a few? The guy took out 49 lives. If it's using bullets it can probably kill, regardless of intent or initial purpose. If you are trying to make the case that the AR 15 is somehow less dangerous than other guns then i'm sorry to tell you, you can't. If we're trying to take soldiers of the field then why don't we just use guns that use injector type ammo with a cocktail designed to paralyze them for a day or two?

a reply to: Phage

It's a secondary function to be sure ...so long as the user can AIM.

a reply to: andy06shake

I agree ,I use .308,too many stories of the bad guys NOT dropping with one shot.

a reply to: Enlil2215

Because then we would have tranq rifles in a gun fight with bad guys...DUH.
I'd take a recon squad and Claymores anytime over a tazer and protesters ,BELIEVE me.

originally posted by: 00018GE
I get tired of hearing the news media talking heads saying that AR-15's are designed to kill. AR-15's and the like AND military rounds in general are designed to wound NOT kill. Wounding an enemy soldier takes more soldiers off the battlefield than killing enemy soldiers. These kinds of weapons are designed to wound. I don't understand why no one calls them on this more often.

Counterpoint: Yes, there are official documents that prove you are absolutely wrong..
gawker.com...

The results, culled from evaluations by American “advisors” and South Vietnamese already deployed against the Viet Cong, were crystalline: “The lethality of the AR-IS and its reliability record were particularly impressive.”

The report describes, with grisly detail, how the AR-15, chambered with the same .223 ammunition that it uses today, not only killed VC soldiers but decapitated and dismembered them:


VC soldiers shot with the AR-15 were regularly described as looking as if they had “exploded”:


Another report notes that among five VC soldiers shot and killed by an AR-15 in one engagement, “four were probably killing wounds with any weapon listed, but the fifth was essentially a flesh wound. The AR-15 made it a fatal wound.” Another field report describes how an AR-15 shot “exploded” one man’s head and turned another person’s torso into “one big hole.”


A member of the Airborne Brigade lauded the rifle’s “excellent killing or stopping power.”

The AR-15 proved remarkably durable during jungle warfare conditions:


It inspired awe and respect among soldiers for its capacity to kill:


It could even shoot through dense jungle underbrush:


In The Gun, C.J. Chivers’ Pulitzer-winning history of the AK-47, he describes the AR-15 as “an American shift in rifles for killing men,” and recounts the thousands of Pentagon tests with live animals and cadavers that charted just how well the rifle could blow through internal organs and turn brains into mist on the battlefield.

I'm a long time reader, but hardly ever post. So I'm not a huge part of the community, however, I hope I can contribute in some small way. This gun debate has me ad odds a lot of the time. IMO, the AR-15 is a killing machine. I agree that it isn't the most effective, hell my hunting rifle would do a lot more damage per round. That being said, the AR-15 does have a much larger clip than my rifle.

Now, what gets me is most people that I have spoke with on the issue, want all guns out of the hands of Americans. This is a concern to me because if someone broke into my home, I'd sure like to have the opportunity to protect my two little girls and my significant other. In a perfect world I'd say sure, lets get rid of assault rifles, but the only thing that keeps me debating the issue in my mind is the what if.. First it's assault rifles, then its any gun with a clip, then it's any gun that can hold more than one shell at a time. Then all guns. Our country is here today, we are all here to post about this subject today because a group of men decided that they weren't going to live in tyranny of a government any more. I think the biggest reason we have the 2nd amendment written into our constitution is to make sure that never happens again. We are loosing our rights left and right, and I for one don't have enough trust in our fearless leaders to hand mine over yet.

Like I said, in a perfect world I'd be happy to hand over my guns, but I just don't think we're there yet. Personally, I don't own an assault rifle, and that is my choice, but I have no issues with anyone who does, as long as they follow the correct process and are safe with it. The biggest thing we as a whole need to focus on is our communities, people are way more apathetic than ever, and apparently teaching your kids gun safety has gone out the window for a lot of folks. I was taught at a young age to respect the gun, and never once did I try to bust open my dads safe and pull out a gun to take to school, nor did I ever have the thought. The issue is in the way our society has changed over the last 30 years or so.

Also, I am offended by another posters comment about bow hunters leaving animals in the woods to suffer. I shoot a traditional long bow, and I practice all the time to make sure that doesn't happen when I shoot at an elk. I take my hunting seriously and have never left an animal to suffer. I would never take a bad shot either.