AR Platforms & 2d Amendment

[Acrow264]

Hey Guys, I go to law school in D.C. where other students say and believe things about firearms and the firearms community that are so unbased I'm concerned. I'm trying to breath air besides the stuff hanging over D.C. and wanted perspective from the community. How do you answer these hypothetical questions or do you have favorite academic resources, e.g., a favorite Federalist Paper. I'm talking people who professedly don't know anything about guns and have never held one, but argued about ARs. We got into a discussion today about the 2d Amendment Constitutional law regarding the Supreme Court's holding in Heller, written by Justice Scalia (the case, a summary). Some people in class look at Las Vegas and others and are glad they couldn't own something more, I don't think all of them are disingenuous when they want to debate some of the below questions. Thanks.

One: How many of you would chose a rifle platform over a hand gun or shotgun for self-defense?

Two: Besides self-defense, what else would/do you use semi-auto rifles for (fun/hobby; militia/against gov't tyranny; other)?

Three: Do you support any limits on arms? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can own, in light of other people shooting others? Are nukes and the missiles that can deliver them arms?

Four: Since Heller says arms rights have limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own (without reference to who should be able to own a gun and, separately, where guns should be allowed).

 

[SSG69]

1. Depends on circumstance. Inside my home I would prefer a shotgun loaded with buck. If someone is shooting at me outside I would pick ar.

2. HUNTING!

3. None. When they make it illegal to have a cell phone in a car (texting and driving) I’ll start to believe they care about people’s lives.

4. I feel sorry for the thug that gets blasted with my brand new shiny bazooka while breaking in my house.

 

[ArmyJerry]

BTW the SUPREME COURT has lost its moral authority to interpret even a bazooka comic. They caused the last civil war and will cause the next one, you sound young , you will probably die in the next civil war, my advice is to buy more ammo and stop talking to people who want to talk about unconstitutional ramblings of 9 asshole democrat and republicans in robes.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

What AJ said.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

There's absolutely nothing special about an AR15 that makes it any different than any other semi-automatic rifle.

It just looks so "military" that the everyday, unknowing citizens believe that they are something 'special'. We REALLY need to pound it in to these mother fuckers that a gun is a gun is gun. A musket is as deadly as an AR15. Just takes more time for a follow up shot. ?

 

[hlee]

1. AR, every time
2. All lawful purposes
3. "Shall not be infringed..."
4. Read number 3 again.

These questions ins are ludicrous whenframed within the contexts of any of the other annendments in the bill of rights. They are just as ludicrous when framed within the context of the 2nd. Fuck your limits.

 

[SSG69]

A gun is a gun, ban them all would be the rebuttal...

 

[johnnycat]

1) The AR if my only three choices are AR, handgun, shotgun.
2) Because I want it and it's my constitutional right as a law-abiding citizen
3) "Shall not be infringed" means just that
4) "Shall not be infringed" means just that

 

[mikehotel]

inside...shotgun

outside...AR

................................always pack a 1911........45apc

 

[Jefe's Dope]

ban them all.

Let's just cut to the chase then.

My rebuttal... A militia being necessary to a free state... something, something... shall NOT be infringed. Just sayin'.

 

[JMGlasgow]

If you even have to ask these questions, you've lost already.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

One: How many of you would chose an AR platform over a hand gun or shotgun for self-defense?
Me.

Two: Besides a self-defense, what else would/do you use ARs for (fun/hobby; militia/against gov't tyranny; other)?
Anything. The AR-15 offers the most features and adaptability consolidating into a single design.

Three: Do you support any limits on ARs? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can own, in light of other people shooting others?
No. Give up none.

Four: Since the law of the land is that this right is not without limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own (without reference to who should be able to own a gun and, separately, where guns should be allowed). Think broadly, because one of my colleagues made the argument, "Well what if bazookas become the norm for defending your house?" Some struggled in creating a rule distinguishing a long gun from an RPG—partly because they didn’t know the difference.
If you can lift it off the ground or move it, either physically or otherwise, in a single motion then you can legally own it. So pretty much just everything except underground missile silos. I'd want a cursory inspection for an underground missile silo, otherwise, start digging for all I care.

 

[SSG69]

Let's just cut to the chase then.

My rebuttal... A militia being necessary to a free state... something, something... shall NOT be infringed. Just sayin'.

Exactly, because there is no reasoning with them. Jesus Christ they wanna be able to cut the head off a baby when it pops out. As long as the shoulders are still holding it it’s just tissue, right?

 

[SilentStalkr]

Interesting question for someone that just joined the site. DC person doing research? Hmmm...makes one suspicious. Yo mods where is the IP of this member from? I’m curious. In regards to your question, read the BOR and get back to me. Frankly I don’t care what any law person in DC thinks. The constitution is the law of the land, it cannot be anymore black and white. Want to amend it? There is a process for that and our lawmakers seem oblivious to that fact and the people they represent. As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter what weapon I choose, it’s my choice. See BOR again. We’ve already given up too much, imo. No more. I suspect people at this point would just disregard any new unconstitutional laws and go back to doing things like they did in the Prohibition Times, AKA give the feds the finger. People will only be backed into a corner so far.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

I want an M777 Howitzer named Chuck Norris.

 

[SilentStalkr]

I want an M777 Howitzer named Chuck Norris.
View attachment 7018455

As far as I’m concerned, if you can afford it and can move it then have at it!

 

[Lapuapalooza]

1-every time, its simple, a shotgun and a hand gun are only to be used to fight your way back to your rifle that you should not have dropped in the first -place. Shootem in the face.

2-not to defend myself, its to defend freedom, the Constitution, dispense justice and to shoot muther fuckers in the face, if you are worried about self defense you lost anything worth living for and should just by analeze for you will be fucked in the ass the rest of your miserable pussy life.

3-Limits, what are you fucking nuts, get out of here with that shit, I think every male citizen should be given a full auto and Nuke Powered hand grenades.

4-The law of the land is the Constitution, anything else that is not the Constitution is no law at all, see 1,2, and 3 above.Nothing wrong with Bazookas, Machine guns, howitzers, etc.

The 2nd amendment is there to shoot tyrannical Unconstitutional government in the face and destroy them, not for deer hunting or home defense.

bottom line whatever weapons teh government has we should also have so they are not tempted to do a Waco on all of us.

In #3 you forgot A-10 Warthogs and M1A1 Abrams.

 

[2ndamendfan]

1- I would absolutely take an AR over a hand gun, or a shotgun. Tell them they watch to many movies.
2- umm, any damn thing I want that doesn't include murder, rape, intentional harm towards another person. Ask them to justify freedom of religion, would it not be common sense that there would be less turmoil if we all practiced the same religion. Rights do not need to be justified.
3-no limits, not willing to give up anything.

Your fellow colleges need to educate themselves. They are being brain washed by MSM. America has not been a safer country at any point in the last 60 years than it is today. That is a fact. Gun control was tried here before, it was a failure.
From the 1960's to 1995ish crime rose almost every year. Carrying a loaded gun in your car or on your person was against the law almost nation wide. In the mid 90's laws were loosened and in those areas crime dropped, which lead to other states loosening their gun laws. Which lead to even lower crime. The AWB ended in 2004, yet 15 years latter crime continues to drop.
Hand guns are used in more mass shootings than AR style rifles (it is true look it up, Virginia Tech was comes to mind)
The lowest estimates are that guns prevent 800,000 crimes a year, with the highest being near 3,000,000. That is one point that anti-gunners never make. That trying to prevent one gun death could result in 30,000 more rapes. That seems like a fair trade to them. Personally rape seems like a worst crime than murder. At least when someone is dead, their pain is over.

4- any limit imposed on civilians makes us 2nd class people. Really gets under my skin when LEO (especially retired LEO) are exempt from magazine bans. Do I think LEO should be limited to 7-10 rounds HELL NO, but protecting my life is just as important as protecting their life. I deserve all the best equipment also.
I guess if Bill Gates wants to buy a aircraft carrier let him.
RPG's for self defense, when tanks start rolling down the streets.

History is also repeat with governments un-arming their citizens and then killing said citizens. Some how people have become comfortable with being a slave to the government. People want protection. Protection a government can not provide, and in our case according to the SCOTUS is not required to provide.

 

[Hookturnr]

1: EVERY FUCKING TIME!!
2: Hunting, Competition, plinking
3: The only limit should be your pocketbook.
4:You should be able to own whatever you can afford to. Owners should be held responsible for their actions with said items.

For example, if you shoot a motherfucker in the face with your brand new home defense bazooka and the round over penetrates and kills the neighbors cat, you should be held responsible for said cats demise to the fullest extent of the law. In other words, have a well stocked tool box and be sure to use the right tool for the task at hand

 

[Steel+Killer]

INTRO.: I grew up hunting at my family home since before I could shave—varmints, fowl, deer.

At what age do you start shaving-varmints, fowl, deer?

 

[Fig]

Our rights have already been infringed WAY too much. We need to repeal the Progressive amendments, abolish income tax, senators should only be appointed by states ledgeslatures, repeal the NFA, eliminate 50% of federal agencies, and 50% of the entirety of the CFR...for starters.

SCOTUS has failed us. At a minimum they’ve invalidated the 10th Amendment by fiat, which is treason. It all needs to be burnt to the ground and we need to start over. There is no saving it at this point. It’s an utterly corrupt tyranny.

 

[Steel+Killer]

All jokes aside any arm the tax collectors can own so should the tax payers be able to.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

I'm not fucking joking.

 

[quietmike]

Arms, as mentioned in the second amendment, is an inclusive term.

Shall not be infringed is very plain language.

If we're looking to restrict fundamental rights, let's start by restricting the vote to anyone on food stamps, welfare, or living in subsidized housing. They've already amply demonstrated a propensity for making poor choices, so why should they get to choose our representation?

 

[SilentStalkr]

I'm not fucking joking.
View attachment 7018467

I can hook you up! How much money you want to spend? Lmao.

 

[QuickNDirty]

1. Yes
2. Everything
3. Shall not be infringed
4. Fuck SCOTUS, shall not be infringed

Tell your co-workers to quit being pussies and enjoy their lives while staying the fuck out of mine.

 

[Islander]

1: Indoors, handgun or shotgun, but I do have an AR handy. Outdoors AR
2: I have AR's that are set up for hunting varmints, some set up for 3 Gun competition, some for just plinking and some for Precision Rifle competition.
3: No, it's no different than any other semi-auto rifle, just plastic in place of wood.
4: No restriction. If you can afford it, go for it. As long as the owners are responsible with it there is no problem. The problem is that when some asshat is irresponsible, politicians think restricting everyone else will solve the problem.

On a side note. By the current definition of "antique" and "vintage" the AR platform is now basically a vintage rifle. My wife is in the antique business and things over 100 yrs. are considered "antique", things over 50 yrs are considered "vintage". The AR was originally designed in the late 50's and adopted by the US military in 1963. That's 55 years ago. When people ask me about why I own and support the use of AR's I tell them I'm into vintage rifles.

 

[QuickNDirty]

Dude didn't mention AR platform shotguns.

 

[acudaowner]

why choose when all 3 are nice i like my ar is a good tool, same goes for my handgun it works well and has never to my knowledge peed on the rug or broken any laws i want a shotgun nothing like having so many wonderful choices could shoot rock salt , or a slug or rocks if that is what i wanted to load they listen well they stay in place waiting for me to move them unlike kids they never ask stupid question or drive cars while intoxicated they work hard and hopefully work for a long time after i'm gone.

 

[Blutroop]

Your buddies got a point.. we need restrictions... we need to restrict anyone who don’t support the constitution into Mexico right before we put motion sensing turrets on top of our new wall

 

[Blutroop]

I know I’m not the only one here who has slept with a ar in their sleeping bag...

 

[MosesTheTank]

1, AR every time. Maybe a different AR... I have one or two set up for everything from ground hogs, home defense, deer, automobiles... in 22LR, 223, 300BO, 300 Win Mag, 308, 6.5CM, 6.5 Grendel... short, long, bare bones, and pimped out.

2. 3G, plinking, de-varminting, one of them works well as a barbell... but always with the 2A in mind.

3. No limits whatsoever. I am willing to give up nothing.

4. We have created an absolutely insane military-industrial complex. From the American Revolution to the Boers to Afghanistan history has shown us what a citizen army (or a military that can quickly call upon its citizens) can do. Quite unfortunately, the current state of ill-preparedness in America's civilian population has me shaking my head about what the best answer is.

However, as a sailor and as a descendant of a participant in the American Revolution who used his own vessel to great effect against tyranny, I maintain that your arsenal should be limited only by your pocketbook.

For my pilot friends if they could afford an F-16 with all the goodies then so be it. And I mean this with all earnestness.

 

[taulce1]

Anyone who supports any restrictions is no supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I won't comply and I won't give an inch.

 

[Flyingbullseye]

OP, you live and work close to DC. Which congress critter you work for? If not, what progressive group? And your colleagues? People that own and enjoy firearms are not the unreasonable and crazy people they are made out to be. Once you travel away from DC and interact with regular people in the heartland and who also own firearms you'll find they are some of the most respectful and caring, open people to be around.

I'm not trying to come off defensive and all but if you actually grew up hunting, shooting and such you seem very naïve. Your post and questions just came off as odd for the background you are supposed to have. If you're legit welcome and my apologies. If you're not and you came for other reasons I'll still say welcome. Just if you stay and want to discuss 2a related topics my only advice is to have an actual open mind, be reasonable/respectful, humble and not either get or take things personal. You'll find people are different than that your perceptions would have had you believe otherwise.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

I should clarify that I don't want a Howitzer to use in anger.

It would bring me great joy.

 

[pmclaine]

One: How many of you would choose to exercise your right to free speech?

Two: Besides talking, what else would/do you use free speech for (protesting, verbal instruction, complimentary)?

Three: Do you support any limits on free speech? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can say, in light of other people saying mean things to others?

Four: Since the law of the land is that this right is not "to be infringed on" (AM #2, the Bill of Rights), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can say and not say (without reference to who should be able to speak and, separately, where speech should be allowed). Think broadly, because one of my colleagues made the argument, "Well what if free speech become the norm for defending your ideas?" Some struggled in creating a rule distinguishing compliments from an insult—partly because they are either so fucking stupid or lying tyrants bent on killing you.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

 

[armorpl8chikn]

I'll just cover it all in one go. If the framers of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights could be time traveled to 2019, and given a "tour" of their great experiment of a Republic, I expect their response to be unanimous in this manner:
1) "I see that you possess much marvelous weaponry! Let us carry them in treft to the door of your abode! We shall cry "release the hounds!"

2) "Thy smokehouse and larder must truly brim with fine delicacies of fine meats! Thy neighbors surely must be exceedingly polite. The highwayman, surely trembles at your approach."

3) "Infringements! How did you let this happen?! Tempted I am to hangeth my boot up your backside to such a depth as you shall taste shoe polish!"

4) "What is this marvelous armed conveyance they call a "tank", and why good sir do you not have one in fully armed fashion?!"
"What?"
"And these "fully automatic" weapons, you say only the "military" are issued these weapons?"
"How could you squander all that we purchased for you, at such a great price? I wish now to breaketh my foot off in your privvy squatting backside!"

 

[Decoy]

Use this argument on them.................................

Its not up to us to decide for anybody what think we should restrict, that is a bullshit type of logic to get us trapped into think we should consider giving up rights. Our founding fathers did that for us.

As QuickNDirty said "Shall not be infringed"

It seems very special to me that "someone that knows nothing about guns" is having a discussion about what guns should be allowed. WTF, sign me up for recommending brain surgery procedures and which knitting needles should be allowed to be purchased.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

If we all had the arms we were constitutionally entitled to we wouldn't need half the government. Venezuela fucking us all up? Gather the Howitzers and throw a minigun on that Realtree bassboat with the otherwise incompatibly large Evinrude, we gotta go kick another country in the balls. No congress needed, no federally supported military industrial complex needed. If we had a civilian contributed NORAD I bet that shit would've been on point for 9/11, too.

The Constitution was written to outline the unrestrictable ways in which a man is a government unto himself, a unilateral restriction upon the powers of any outside majority. However, the Federal government has created a modern dynamic where personal responsibility, accountability, and self-sufficiency can be exchanged for federal reliance and allegiance. This trend has contributed to a drastic lack of consideration in regard to the essential liberties on which it could ever sustain itself, and has fostered a profound duality within the general population.

 

[oneshot86]

Interesting question for someone that just joined the site. DC person doing research? Hmmm...makes one suspicious. Yo mods where is the IP of this member from? I’m curious. In regards to your question, read the BOR and get back to me. Frankly I don’t care what any law person in DC thinks. The constitution is the law of the land, it cannot be anymore black and white. Want to amend it? There is a process for that and our lawmakers seem oblivious to that fact and the people they represent. As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter what weapon I choose, it’s my choice. See BOR again. We’ve already given up too much, imo. No more. I suspect people at this point would just disregard any new unconstitutional laws and go back to doing things like they did in the Prohibition Times, AKA give the feds the finger. People will only be backed into a corner so far.

exactly what i was thinking and yet people here just need to talk, oh my oh my, i can be the first person to answer the moles question...
some of you are your and our worst enemys
blab away, give him all the info he needs to twist away on.
you guys are stupid easy to troll

 

[armorpl8chikn]

exactly what i was thinking and yet people here just need to talk, oh my oh my, i can be the first person to answer the moles question...
some of you are your and our worst enemys
blab away, give him all the info he needs to twist away on.
you guys are stupid easy to troll

Oh for fucks sake. Lighten up Francis.
Troll he may be, but some of us like to play with trolls, Mr Cocky McBlockerson.

Maybe he is the booger man, hell I ain't afraid of him either. Might be some sport in that as well.

 

[Rthur]

INTRO.: I grew up hunting at my family home since before I could shave—varmints, fowl, deer. I now live and and work very close to D.C. and I spend time with people who had different youths (I'm talking people who professedly don't know anything about guns and have never held one.). We got into a legal discussion today about ARs and the 2d Amendment Constitutional law regarding the Supreme Court's holding in Heller, written by Justice Scalia (the case, a summary). This case is the law of the land on gun law. I have some questions I want to hear honest and humble feedback, because my experience only comes from my neck of the woods. Please note to which question you are replying and keep it focused. Thanks.

One: How many of you would chose an AR platform over a hand gun or shotgun for self-defense?

Two: Besides a self-defense, what else would/do you use ARs for (fun/hobby; militia/against gov't tyranny; other)?

Three: Do you support any limits on ARs? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can own, in light of other people shooting others?

Four: Since the law of the land is that this right is not without limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own (without reference to who should be able to own a gun and, separately, where guns should be allowed). Think broadly, because one of my colleagues made the argument, "Well what if bazookas become the norm for defending your house?" Some struggled in creating a rule distinguishing a long gun from an RPG—partly because they didn’t know the difference.

Why exactly are you here asking these questions?
Friendly debate or more?
Bazooka debate is ridiculous and obviously a deflection from futher talking about actual stats that don't support proposed "solutions".
A Right isn't something that is negotiated over.
See above.
Regular Citizens aren't causing the crime and violence, why is the solution always to strip them of rights?
RPG/Bazooka GTFOH with this false equivalency.
Here is an example of the last sentence: What if my Aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?

R

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

The M777 makes extensive use of both titanium and aluminium to remain vehicle towable and airlift certified at 9,300 lb. It's capable of firing an unguided 155mm shell up to 30 kilometers with an accuracy of about 200 meters. GPS guided Excalliber shells have a range of up to 40 kilometers and are accurate to approximately 10 meters. It can fire up to five rounds per minute with a fully manned crew, and upgrades exist for mechanical automation, targeting, and emplacement establishment.

 

[oneshot86]

Oh for fucks sake. Lighten up Francis.
Troll he may be, but some of us like to play with trolls, Mr Cocky McBlockerson.

Maybe he is the booger man, hell I ain't afraid of him either. Might be some sport in that as well.

they arent playing w the troll, and you know so
i stand by my post

 

[Yellowfever440]

OP please define what you mean by AR, I have a feeling you dont know what it means.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

How about some actual facts as to why an AR is the best in home self defense.

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/#mozTocId998203

TLDR: 5.56/.223 doesn't over penetrate through drywall nearly as much as even small handgun calibers or shotgun shot. IOW over penetration is less likely to occur in adjacent rooms or to leave the premises and penetrate a neighboring home causing injury or death.

Now there are many platform that can shoot 5.56/.223 but the AR is the most popular. Also, the platform or aesthetics of a gun don't change the ballistic characteristics. Except barrel length of course. But only muzzle velocity not terminal ballistics.

Edit: You should prefer your neighbor using an AR15(5.56/.223) in a home defense situation than pretty much any other caliber. You and your family and neighbors will be safest with that choice. Especially if you live in an apartment or condo. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good gun banning.

Edit part deux: Dr. Roberts, the above linked info, is considered THE most credible research on bullet ballistics and wound channel research.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

they arent playing w the troll, and you know so
i stand by my post

I'm not saying you aren't making a valid point...

He had me at "I grew up hunting at my family farm before I could masturbate..."
I knew immediately I wanted his mommy to let him come out and play.

 

[...]

four: Since the law of the land is that this right is not without limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own

None......for 3 reasons.

1) the 2A IS without limits...... that’s kinda the whole point of the “shall not be infringed” bit

2) the govt can only operate within the powers outlined in the constitution.... and no where does it state that the govt can regulate arms.

3) the 2A is an explicit restraint from allowing the govt to regulate arms.


Federal courts have 0 authority to “interpret” the constitution...... think of the 2A like a restraining order...... you wouldn’t grant authority to the subject of a restraining order “interpret” that restraining order, would you?

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

He asked for watercooler talk, he got it. If OP comes back and this thread isn't about Howitzers or ICBMs I will be disappoint.

Technically it is feasible to own and fire an M777 155mm ultralight artillery system, however, outlandish qualifications to do so stand in the way for many law-abiding citizens. If I can afford it and deliver it to my house, there shouldn't be more to it than that.

 

[Acrow264]

Why exactly are you here asking these questions?
Friendly debate or more?
Bazooka debate is ridiculous and obviously a deflection from futher talking about actual stats that don't support proposed "solutions".
A Right isn't something that is negotiated over.
See above.
Regular Citizens aren't causing the crime and violence, why is the solution always to strip them of rights?
RPG/Bazooka GTFOH with this false equivalency.
Here is an example of the last sentence: What if my Aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?

R

Friendly. I'm only on this site because I like shooting. I asking on the Hide because we are group of people who are dedicated and legal enthusiasts. I'm tapping the community's opinions and experience on the forum because I can quickly get perspectives from around the nation from a respectable group.

The bazooka comment is an example for me to show you my colleagues' ignorance (this debate happened with people I work with). I'm basically saying "don't assume" when you answer. I assumed everyone in America could distinguish between small arms and a modern explosives weapon designed to penetrate and destroy mobile armor. But, some here say everyone should have a bazooka along with everything else the government owns. So it was doubly useful because it places you either in the "access to everything" or "restricted access" camp.