Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:00 pm

The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons.

weapons developed for purposes of combat.

Yes...we've covered this.

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:10 pm

We have a thread discussing that.  At the moment we are discussing provision of past, present, and proposed bans.  You are losing, bigly.

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:15 pm

BV, I am feeding you more of the citation you failed to read in the hopes your ADD doesn't kcik in:

During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher.

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:09 pm

That is called a featureless AR and is compliant with the 1994 act as well as most states with such a ban, like CA.  

That citation did not bite me in the ***.  Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.  Here is another:

https://grizzlyfirearmsinc.net/ca-compl ... ashington/



CA Compliant AR15 5.56 -- Tungsten Washington

GRIZZLY FIREARMS INC  $1,500.00

Your running off at the mouth is biting you in the ***.

ROG62 » 22 Feb 2023, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:39 am

did you carry while on duty?

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:19 pm

this is **** idiotic.

It's an AR-15

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:18 pm

If you won't defend it, don't bother.

Cause I don't.

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:17 pm

No....you are prattling to no purpose.

As you generally do.

This is about whether or not Hogg has a valid point.

He does.

ROG62 » 22 Feb 2023, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:30 am

The term “the people” is employed multiple times in the text of the Bill of Rights, and each time it protects an individual right, not some mythical collective right.  For example, it’s facially absurd to suggest that the First Amendment somehow protects the rights of a collective or government entity, or that the Fourth Amendment protects some collective or government entity against unreasonable searches and seizures.  Yet Burger and other Second Amendment restrictionists ask us to accept that the Second Amendment somehow stands unique as a sole exception? 

Indeed, the Tenth Amendment specifically and separately distinguishes between states and “the people” in its text when it references “to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Thus, the Framers were perfectly capable of referring to state authorities when they so chose, and could have done so in the Second Amendment if that’s what they intended. 

That’s not Burger’s only error in interpreting “the very language of the Second Amendment,” however.  Had the Supreme Court actually taken a case interpreting the Second Amendment as the Court did in 2008, he might’ve had the opportunity to understand as the Heller majority did that the term “militia” at the time of ratification referred to all able-bodied men, not some hypothetical “state army” that he references.

 Burger then descends to straw man argumentation when he asserts that the Second Amendment wasn’t “intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to avoid any kind of weapon he or she desires.” 

Which pro-Second Amendment scholar has ever advanced such a claim?

 As the Heller majority explicitly stated, the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean that no restrictions are permissible.  To illustrate by analogy, the First Amendment protects an individual right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean that defamation laws are unconstitutional.  Similarly, the Fourth Amendment protects an individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but that doesn’t mean that warrant exceptions are unconstitutional.

 Accordingly, the fact that some restrictions withstand constitutional scrutiny doesn’t in any way undermine the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not some hypothetical collective right. 

Finally, there’s an amusing paradox and glaring intellectual inconsistency among Second Amendment restrictionists who assert the discredited “collective right” argument that Burger stated. 

Namely, on the one hand they seek to outlaw so-called “assault” weapons and “military-grade” firearms.  Yet on the other hand they claim that the Second Amendment was ratified to protect only “state armies” in Burger’s words.  But taking that argument to its logical end, “assault” weapons and “military-grade” firearms would be precisely the ones most protected by the Second Amendment, since they’d be precisely the types of weapons useful to those hypothetical “state armies.” 

https://cfif.org/v/mobile/#commentaryPost:4683

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:45 am

No one has suggested it.

They should not be distributed for civilian use as the sole purpose of their development was for combat.

As unambiguously demonstrated.

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:27 pm

You went down this road.  And know you do what you best.  Whine about getting your *** kicked.  

Hogg does not have a valid due to the actions of the framers, James Madison himself, and the lack of actions of the FED GOV for the first 140 years of the 2nd Amendment.  I have already posted this, with sources.

You may begin you argument or run away.

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:31 pm

You stick your nose into a conversation I was having with another poster and then complain what the thread is about.  After I stomp you.

FJB » 22 Feb 2023, 10:30 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 10:30 am

LMFAO, you couldn't prove it when the site was up.

FJB » 22 Feb 2023, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 10:28 am

Listen MM, you do the same thing when confronted with a question. You continue to spew what ifs.

FJB » 22 Feb 2023, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 10:25 am

I target shoot a lot, it is nice to have a 30 round clip.

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:41 pm

wouldn't a 100 round gen-2 drum magazine be even more convenient for the average recreational target shooter like you?

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm

Only when I served as the OIC of a boarding party.  We practiced with every weapon in the small arms locker on a regular basis, but the only personnel who carried a side arm on board a ship were the guards at the doors of weapons magazines.

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:25 pm

I defended against your misinterpretation.  If you refuse to read info provided there is no need for me to keep **** curbstomping you.

FJB » 22 Feb 2023, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:52 pm

Hogg is a ***