Jump to content


AR15Armory Announcements


Photo

Fourth Circuit Sets the Stage for a New National Gun Ban


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   wish2no

wish2no

  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 21,647
  • Posts: 11,981
  • Joined: Dec. 02 2010
  • Location:Western Oregon


Posted Feb. 27 2017 - 10:52 AM

Although they will likely be rebuked, it emphasizes our need to remain vigliant and be prepared to do "whatever necessary" to preserve our second amendment rights and constitution. About a 1.5 page article from American Thinker.

 

http://www.americant...al_gun_ban.html




Signature:
“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws….” ~ John Adams

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” [Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174,176 (1803)]

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." [Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights." [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

"Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise: Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
[Watson vs. City of Memphis, 373 US 526, 535 (1963)]

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." [Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516 (1884)]
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” [16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]

#2 ONLINE   Joel74

Joel74

    You got one shot left in that shooter. Make the most of it.


  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 28,391
  • Posts: 11,176
  • Joined: Mar. 12 2013
  • Location:Portland,Tx


Posted Feb. 27 2017 - 10:57 AM

Except they don't have the House, the Senate or the Presidency.  The only way liberals seem to get what they want is with liberal judges making laws. 




Signature:

I will not comply.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."- Thomas Jefferson
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

 

Sharps%201874%20-%20s1_zpsgc6qmatj.png


#3 ONLINE   SturmGewehr

SturmGewehr

  • Group:Members
  • Member ID: 31,177
  • Posts: 2,636
  • Joined: Apr. 04 2016
  • Location:Wofford Heights, CA.


Posted Feb. 27 2017 - 01:19 PM

Except they don't have the House, the Senate or the Presidency.  The only way liberals seem to get what they want is with liberal judges making laws. 

 

And they will lose this too, soon.




#4 ONLINE   Joel74

Joel74

    You got one shot left in that shooter. Make the most of it.


  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 28,391
  • Posts: 11,176
  • Joined: Mar. 12 2013
  • Location:Portland,Tx


Posted Feb. 27 2017 - 03:11 PM

weapon%20of%20war_zpsmwohebn5.jpg




#5 OFFLINE   ScoutnUSA

ScoutnUSA

  • Group:Members*
  • Member ID: 31,399
  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: Jul. 25 2016
  • Location:Colorado Springs


Posted Feb. 27 2017 - 06:51 PM

weapon%20of%20war_zpsmwohebn5.jpg

This may seem like a really dumb question but doesn't our military use AR-15's? Maybe by a different name, and with a full auto option, but other than that the same?

Let the flaming begin.

 

Darrell




#6 ONLINE   grunt68

grunt68

  • Group:Members
  • Member ID: 27,000
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Joined: Oct. 12 2012
  • Location:elkhart in


Posted Feb. 27 2017 - 07:12 PM

This may seem like a really dumb question but doesn't our military use AR-15's? Maybe by a different name, and with a full auto option, but other than that the same?

Let the flaming begin.

 

Darrell

no the military uses the m-16 or the m4 ar15s are civilian sporting rifles the AR does not stand foe assault rifle




#7 OFFLINE   ScoutnUSA

ScoutnUSA

  • Group:Members*
  • Member ID: 31,399
  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: Jul. 25 2016
  • Location:Colorado Springs


Posted Feb. 27 2017 - 07:49 PM

no the military uses the m-16 or the m4 ar15s are civilian sporting rifles the AR does not stand foe assault rifle

Didn't say AR stood for assault rifle. Armalite Rifle yes.

So what are the differences between the AR-15 and M4 since, as far as I have seen (and I haven't looked at everything) most components seem interchangeable? Other than the full auto function?

This is a serious question.

 

Darrell


Edited by ScoutnUSA, Feb. 27 2017 - 08:03 PM.



#8 OFFLINE   Rexwagon

Rexwagon

  • Group:Bronze Patron
  • Member ID: 27,548
  • Posts: 2,324
  • Joined: Dec. 19 2012
  • Location:West Fargo, ND


Contributor

Posted Mar. 03 2017 - 12:19 AM

Didn't say AR stood for assault rifle. Armalite Rifle yes.

So what are the differences between the AR-15 and M4 since, as far as I have seen (and I haven't looked at everything) most components seem interchangeable? Other than the full auto function?

This is a serious question.

 

Darrell

you must be high

 

Military use Assault weapons.  In order for it to be an assault weapon it requires Select fire capabilities.  No reason any military would want to use an AR15 when they could go pick any semi-auto weapon.  Select fire, barrel length, and components are everything.  Lots of companies advertise something as mil-spec but very few would handle the abuse and sustain the longevity of a real M16.  The Average ar15 is a great rifle.  But its no weapon of war.




#9 OFFLINE   Pepper

Pepper

    Ban-O-Matic


  • Group:Admins
  • Member ID: 21
  • Posts: 36,609
  • Joined: Sep. 17 2005
  • Location:Oregon


Posted Mar. 03 2017 - 01:47 AM

The AR-15 is slightly different than the M16 or M4. It has no full auto capability, and most AR's are 16" or longer, unless SBR's. They are similar to what the military uses, and most parts interchange completely. But it is noteworthy that the smaller profile of most battle rifles, and the full auto capability makes them different. No military uses the AR specifically, I know of no military that eschews full auto capability in a standard issue rifle. That distinction alone is enough of a separation to say that they're vastly different animals. 




Signature:

"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character"
- Einstein


Isaiah 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Who shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here I am. Send me!"

 

I will NOT comply!
 

 


#10 OFFLINE   TomJefferson

TomJefferson

  • Group:Senior Staff
  • Member ID: 7
  • Posts: 36,590
  • Joined: Sep. 13 2005
  • Location:Tennessee


Contributor

Posted Mar. 03 2017 - 05:06 AM

This may seem like a really dumb question but doesn't our military use AR-15's? Maybe by a different name, and with a full auto option, but other than that the same?

Let the flaming begin.

 

Darrell

Use to be years ago but not anymore.  Other than saying all rifles have barrels, recievers, and stocks in common, that's about it, cosmetics only anymore.  The industry under pressure from the government has made the parts more and more not interchangeable over the years. 

 

For example, early AR15s used MIL Spec lowers simply drilled differently than the M16.  The blank before drilling could be used for either gun.  Now they forge a stop in the receiver so it won't even accept an M16 selector switch. 

 

You could say the AR15 has more in common with the MIni 14 these days than the M16, however it is the myth that the left pushes that its the other way around.  The guns can look alike so it fits their narrative.  We in the gun culture use terms like "Scary Black Rifle".  A MIni 14 will throw just as many rounds just as fast downrange, same round even.  In fact before the 92' ban, the 40 round Mini-14 Mag was extremely popular. 

 

The danger of all this BS by the left is while they scream "Evil Look it looks like the M16" distraction is they are banning basic gun features such as mag capacity and semi-automatic function, which impacts even the basic handguns never even used or even a gun that looks like it by the Military.  When they get finished with what our grandfather's owned, they'll start on black powder guns.  After all, an 1851 Navy Colt will shoot six shots without reloading. 

 

They can only accomplish this by changing history.  You have to totally ignore when the Constitution was written Militias were entirely made up of citizens which would mean without any doubt they had the same light weapons, carry guns, as the regular Army.  Of course, that makes the entire 2nd Amendment stupid like it reads "The US Military should have guns", a "Duh?" comment.  This was the fallacy in the Heller decision which in simple terms said "You can't forbid but you can regulate" without addressing against what?  The decision then is ignoring the entire Militia comment in the 2nd Amendment like "Well we admit citizens had guns but they didn't have the good ones."  This or course is even more changing of history since reality was up until the government started taking guns away for most of our history, civilians had access to better guns than the military. For example during the late 1880's, the US Mlitary was using a single shot breach loading rifle when the lever action or mag fed bolt action was more popular with civilians.   (Notice how the narrative old Cowboy and Indian movies are racist fits their agenda?  Of course even that is BS as by far most of those movies pushed the Noble Indian agenda.)

 

This decision over the Maryland ban is a setback but the battle isn't lost.  If Trump can appoint two constitutionalist as justices that go back to the founders original intent,  this could all change and the 2nd would not simply being stating the Army should have guns. 

 

Our Constitution outlines a clear path to changing the amendments that does not include through the courts by a series of bad decisions with a political agenda in mind. 

 

Tj




#11 OFFLINE   muzlblast

muzlblast

  • Group:Members
  • Member ID: 17,517
  • Posts: 9,379
  • Joined: Nov. 28 2009
  • Location:Way out in the boonies


Posted Mar. 14 2017 - 05:22 PM

This may seem like a really dumb question but doesn't our military use AR-15's? Maybe by a different name, and with a full auto option, but other than that the same?
Let the flaming begin.
 
Darrell



I think a better question would be, whats wrong with owning a weapon of war? The military uses bolt action scoped rifles too and we are allowed to own those. Why shouldn't I be able to own an M16 without having to pay 20 grand for it?


#12 ONLINE   Gmountain

Gmountain

  • Group:Senior Staff
  • Member ID: 417
  • Posts: 56,079
  • Joined: Nov. 20 2005
  • Location:Heliosphere


Posted Mar. 14 2017 - 06:20 PM

I think a better question would be, whats wrong with owning a weapon of war? The military uses bolt action scoped rifles too and we are allowed to own those. Why shouldn't I be able to own an M16 without having to pay 20 grand for it?

Yes. You should.

 

You should be able to own anything the military has. If you can afford an aircraft carrier, or an F-16, you should be able to buy one. Using it inappropriately is the issue, not owning it.




Signature:

Wag more. Bark less.

 

So many guns, so little time.

 


#13 ONLINE   redbarron06

redbarron06

    FATALITY!!!


  • Group:G.D. Staff
  • Member ID: 6,696
  • Posts: 45,882
  • Joined: Jul. 20 2008
  • Location:Whites Creek TN


Contributor

Posted Mar. 14 2017 - 06:22 PM

Yes. You should.
 
You should be able to own anything the military has. If you can afford an aircraft carrier, or an F-16, you should be able to buy one. Using it inappropriately is the issue, not owning it.


That's what I am talking about, I want an A10 and a M134


Signature:
Posted Image

DUSTOFF IS “REQUEST PRESENT POSITION DEPARTURE FOR URGENT 9-LINE”

If I advance, follow me! If I retreat, kill me! If I die, avenge me! -- Francois De La Rochefoucauld

Posted Image

#14 OFFLINE   DanR

DanR

  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 23,008
  • Posts: 7,719
  • Joined: Apr. 07 2011
  • Location:Columbia, S.C.


Posted Mar. 19 2017 - 09:46 PM

Yes. You should.

 

You should be able to own anything the military has. If you can afford an aircraft carrier, or an F-16, you should be able to buy one. Using it inappropriately is the issue, not owning it.

 

I have been saying that for years! The writers of the Constitution wanted an armed population that could stand up to the standing military. The left now wants to make you believe that we must rely on the military and police for our protection even though the SCOTUS har ruled more than 28 times that the job of the police is to protect society, what ever that is, and not the individual. The more arms we have the better!




Signature:

I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!

 

I am an analog guy in a digital world! KISS!!!

"The truth may not set you free, but used carefully, it can confuse the hell out of your enemies." Anita Blake

"Blessed be the Lord my rock, who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight." Psalms 144:1 (see also Psalms 18:34 and 2 Samuel 22:35)

"Great armies and navies are always tempted to fight the last war...Truly fearsome militaries prepare to fight the next war." Thomas & Barry, 2008

"It matters not that a man dies, for all men die. What matters is just what the man died for."


#15 OFFLINE   muzlblast

muzlblast

  • Group:Members
  • Member ID: 17,517
  • Posts: 9,379
  • Joined: Nov. 28 2009
  • Location:Way out in the boonies


Posted Mar. 20 2017 - 11:19 AM




That's what I am talking about, I want an A10 and a M134



Man I like the way you think! You buy it, I'll fly it:)





Forum Statistics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Information Center