re: Gun rights take a hit in appeals court

I want to know what nations armies are using semi auto ar's and ak's

quote:

---

I want to know what nations armies are using semi auto ar's and ak's

---

The FN FAL was sold to armies around the world that included both full auto and semi auto versions. Case in point during the Falkland war, the British had semi auto FN FALs while the Argentinians had the full auto only version.

As for semi auto ARS, the Army at one point used lessons from the AMU to build semi auto DMR rifles.

Army designated marksman rifle

That's a supplement, they aren't using them as the norm, they use them for specific situations.

quote:

---

They'll lose when SCOTUS gets the case. Heller specifically mentions "weapons in common use" and nobody will argue that AR-15s are not common.

---

SCOTUS has refused cases dealing with ruling identical to this out of NY and Conn. recently so don't count on them taking this case. I'd say it is extremely unlikely that they do. There not going to take this case up. For right now, they want to leave "assault" weapons up to the states.

quote:

---

The people are the militia. It would make no sense for the military or any arm of service to be since they would be aligned with government and the people would have no recourse against a corrupt government. Given the above, there can be no constitutional restriction on arms whatsoever. None, not automatic fire, not explosives, not tanks. None.

---

Come and take it, you uppity sarcastic hippy.

You and I are always in the militia

quote:

---

Well, I'd love to hear your argument about how subsequent federal law defines the intent of the framers.

---

I'd love for you to be half-way educated on this topic. 10 US Code Section 311 defines the militia, read it and try making an honest argument next time.

quote:

---

No, it only has relevance if you are trying to determine what the framers meant. If you are not concerned with that and think of the constitution as a living document, then you can simply adapt "arms" to the current meaning of the term.

---

What the framers meant and what you imagine they meant are two different things, your opinion is based on a poor historical understanding and a complete lack of knowledge of the court cases touching on the 2nd Amendment.

quote:

---

Certain a "well-regulated" militia wouldn't muster with whatever arms they felt like bringing. Even most police departments regulate what weapons are to be used by the officers.

---

This gibberish means nothing in the context of Heller or what "well-regulated" meant in the days of the framers. If you are going to cite something like the Federalist Papers, at least try to be consistent in your argument.

quote:

---

As to the well-settledness of the individual right, that is based solely on Heller, a 5-4 decision written by a now-deceased judge. It also glosses over the fact that the Heller court noted that many types of restrictions on guns would remain valid such as the prohibition of owning dangerous or unusual weapons (you know like short-barrelled shotguns, fully automatic weapons, etc) as well as restrictions on commercial sale, prohibitions against certain people, like felons, owning weapons etc. So, Heller isn't nearly the win for gun ownership rights that you want to make it out to be and it does not answer the question of whether the ownership of particular models/types of rifles are protected.

---

First, since it's obvious you've never actually read the Heller decision, you should know that it was 9-0 on whether or not the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right. If you need help understanding this then look up the more recent 8-0 decision in v Caetano. The 5-4 was on the scope of the individual right, not individual vs collective which you are so ignorantly arguing. No SCOTUS court would even try to make a by name/model list of what would be protected under the Second Amendment, that's why they left it sufficiently broad as to protect multiple classes of legally, commonly held firearms like the AR-15. Heller was a huge win for gun-ownership rights, you simply can't fathom how the legal landscape had shifted due to it and how damaging it was to gun-control advocacy groups.

quote:

---

So can you own a fully automatic rifle? Can you own a stinger missle? A tank?

Seems like there are already limitations on what "arms" you can own. That ship has passed.

---

Tanks aren't small arms. Full auto should and is legal at federal level.

quote:

---

So can you own a fully automatic rifle?

---

Yes. $200 for the tax stamp from the ATF and I can buy one if I wanted to cough up that much money. ATF even has that answered on their FAQ.

quote:

---

A tank?

---

Yes, if I had the finances and the space to put one. Same goes for towable auto-cannons and AA guns.

quote:

---

Can you own a stinger missle?

---

Probably but I think I'd rather buy a few machine guns for the cost of procurement.

quote:

---

Seems like there are already limitations on what "arms" you can own. That ship has passed.

---

Seems you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Your ship has sunk

When they say "weapon of war" what does that mean? I mean clubs were WOW at one time