re: SCOTUS to hear AR-15 case

The liberals are going to get too greedy with the gun control stuff and get us fully automatic weapons back.

quote:

---

ETA: Before some dumbass says that people shouldn't own a weapon of war, the AR-15 has never once been used in a military skirmish, war or anything else.

---

No, this is a really stupid line for a number of reasons. The AR-15 was adopted as the M16 and is absolutely designed as a weapon of war. Moreover, semi-only versions have been and are currently being used by the military. SOCOM is currently receiving some semi-only versions of the MK1 CAR.

The 2A absolutely protects "weapons of war" (see US v. Miller). It's time to own it.

quote:

---

"weapon of war"

---

Knives and 9mm pistols are also weapons of war. Ceding the terminology over to the liberals lets them control the discussion and determine what the definition of all this stuff really is. Once we let them ban "weapons of war", everything including knives and handguns are gone too.

Remington 700 and the gun the Wincherster m70 was copied from have been used in more wars than an M-16, m4 or any other variant.

quote:

---

I mean the shotgun was used in wars, as was the 1911, the 38 special revolver, the 45-70 lever action. That’s a hell of a rabbit hole they want to venture down with the “weapon of war” argument.

---

They’d literally have to pry my Springfield Armory 1911 .45 from my cold, dead hands.

quote:

---

in my opinion, it doesn't matter if it's a "weapon of war" or not. we civilians are entitled to it as right granted by the constitution... period.

---

Agreed. Arguing over whether something is a “weapon of war” cedes the framing immediately, because it accepts the premise that “weapons of war” are somehow outside the Second Amendment.

That is backwards.

The Second Amendment does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear sporting arms shall not be infringed.” The militia language is right there in the text. Whatever else someone believes about gun policy, the historical logic of the amendment is obviously tied to civilian possession of arms suitable for militia use.

So “that’s not a weapon of war” is a self-defeating argument. That is the category the amendment most clearly contemplated. The right is not about duck hunting, target shooting, or collecting antiques.

The better argument is whether the Constitution protects civilian ownership of arms, and it plainly does. Once you accept “weapon of war” as a disqualifier, you’ve already conceded the most important ground.

quote:

---

The better argument is whether the Constitution protects civilian ownership of arms, and it plainly does. Once you accept “weapon of war” as a disqualifier, you’ve already conceded the most important ground.

---

Want to go down some real rabbit holes?

I could make the case that a steak knife is a “weapon of war”. It’s all in how you define the term. And who, exactly, determines that?

quote:

---

Remington 700 and the gun the Wincherster m70 was copied from have been used in more wars than an M-16, m4 or any other variant.

---

It doesn't matter. Common sense and plain wording won't matter to this court. As long as you have 4 or 5 far left marxists on the court, they'll do exact what the far left wants.

With Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagen, Barrett and Jackson on that bench, government will end up with total control of your weapons. That's just a fact.

quote:

---

Damn boat accident took mine

---

I realize this meme is sort of a tongue-in-cheek joke based on the premise that the feds are collecting/reading info on people online. But if this comment somehow makes it's away across some feds screen somewhere, I don't mind admitting I've still got all mine, and so do a hundred million other Americans.

quote:

---

It's what the left want.

Confiscation is their goal.

---

This

A/R sales are about to spike. ...again