Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a “weapon of war”, as the redcoats like to describe it.
Besides, the “assault-style features” are purely cosmetic and have no bearing on the functionality of the rifle.
I’m assuming you know who Eugene Stoner is. If you do, you would also be aware that he designed the AR10 in a competition to be a replacement for the M1 Garand. You’d also be aware that the South Vietnamese liked it so much that they asked him to design a smaller version, which resulted in another team at Armalite scaling the AR10 down in addition to Stoner himself designing a new cartridge based on the Remington 222 (IIRC). Smaller weapon was a lot easier for the smaller stature of the Vietnamese to handle and also caught the attention of Curtis LeMay for use as survival equipment for his pilots.
If you don’t know any of that, perhaps you should educate yourself. A great place to start would be the Library of Congress interviews with Eugene Stoner, where he lays out the exact history I described above, which are on YouTube.
Stoner’s AR-15 and the AR-15 of today are pretty different. Now it’s a genericized term for a firearms platform.
Think of it like a PC. It’s about parts being mostly compatible. Lots of parts are interchangeable, though not everything matches. For instance the ammunition dictate the barrel and bolt size, and the buffer tube determines which stocks can be used, etc.
The common feature on pretty much all of them is the lower receiver, which is different than it was for Stoner and for military guns.
AR-15 receivers don’t accommodate a part that’s required for full-auto or burst fire, and modding them to accept the part is a super duper ultra felony - even if you don’t put the part in.
Oh - and the weapon from Armalite used for pilot survival is a COMPLETELY different firearm. It’s the AR-5, and was a 22 hornet takedown rifle that is not useful for combat at all. You can buy one today in .22lr called the AR-7 or “Henry Survival Rifle.”
The “AR” designation just means they were designed by the Armalite Rifle company - the AR-17 was actually a shotgun designed for bird hunting.
Point of fact: AR-15 is actually a trademark owned by Colt. That’s why there’s the Ruger AR-556, and the S&W M&P 15 Sport II, which are marketed as AR-15 style rifles. Kinda like Styrofoam; people misuse the trademark (esp. styrofoam cups; such a thing has never existed) regularly, but it’s still owned by the Dow Chemical Corp. (Or was; I think they sold that division off to E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.)
The trademark probably won’t last too much longer though, as it’s become genercized AND Colt wasn’t the inventor of the product or the name. They also no longer manufacture civilian AR-pattern rifles, so they’re on really shaky grounds for defending the name.
Bayer lost the trademark for Aspirin. Xerox almost lost the trademark to their own name, and had to actually start advertising their products as “photocopiers” instead of “Xerox machines.”
I’m not talking about the Armalite AR-10. Myself, other gun rights activists, and redcoats (gun control proponents) are talking about weapons patterned after the Colt AR-15, which is exclusively semi-automatic.
Oh, you’re a fetishist. I get it now. Anyone who disagrees with the addition of more firearms to a country that already has more guns than people is a redcoat to you. An enemy. Not your fellow citizen, not prior service people who look at firearms as tools of war and see that in our goddamned news every fucking week now… no, we’re your enemy, because we value life more than esoteric interpretations of 200 year old dogma.
Y’all give two fuckin’ shits about a well regulated Militia.
Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a “weapon of war”, as the redcoats like to describe it.
Does a right to bear arms mean something besides owning and carrying loaded guns? Because writing down who has which guns does not stop that in any way.
Unless maybe you’re picking the conclusion you want and working backwards.
Here’s a fun one: should full-auto submachineguns be available at 7-11?
I won’t make a comment on whether automatic submachine guns should or shouldn’t be available at a convenience store. But I will state that under the Second Amendment, any law that prevents people from owning and using submachine guns is illegal.
That’s straight-up endorsing 7-11’s ability to sell literally any gun to literally anybody. If you have hesitations about whether that’s a fucking terrible idea… good. Maybe we can talk about that.
What right is the amendment about? The right to keep and bear arms.
Whose right is it? The people.
What shall be done with this right? It shall not be infringed.
The rest only explains the reason why the amendment was written and doesn’t alter the above facts. Let’s rewrite it a bit to be more understandable:
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.
Is it the right of the well balanced breakfast, or the right of the people, in this case, to keep and eat food? Of course, it is the right of the people. What shall be done with it? It shall not be infringed upon. If you dictate to me what food I am allowed to store in my cupboards and in what circumstances I am allowed to eat it, you are infringing upon my right to keep and eat food.
I get it, you’re an individualist, you won’t find me arguing against an individuals right to own guns; however I disagree with your analysis. Your interpretation of “infringed” seems to be “anything preventing.” Well-regulated in the context of the 2nd amendment implies the imposition of proper training and discipline. This has actually already been decided.
DC v. Heller (which ruled on the individual right to bear arms in 2008) states:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a “weapon of war”, as the redcoats like to describe it.
Besides, the “assault-style features” are purely cosmetic and have no bearing on the functionality of the rifle.
I’m assuming you know who Eugene Stoner is. If you do, you would also be aware that he designed the AR10 in a competition to be a replacement for the M1 Garand. You’d also be aware that the South Vietnamese liked it so much that they asked him to design a smaller version, which resulted in another team at Armalite scaling the AR10 down in addition to Stoner himself designing a new cartridge based on the Remington 222 (IIRC). Smaller weapon was a lot easier for the smaller stature of the Vietnamese to handle and also caught the attention of Curtis LeMay for use as survival equipment for his pilots.
If you don’t know any of that, perhaps you should educate yourself. A great place to start would be the Library of Congress interviews with Eugene Stoner, where he lays out the exact history I described above, which are on YouTube.
Stoner’s AR-15 and the AR-15 of today are pretty different. Now it’s a genericized term for a firearms platform.
Think of it like a PC. It’s about parts being mostly compatible. Lots of parts are interchangeable, though not everything matches. For instance the ammunition dictate the barrel and bolt size, and the buffer tube determines which stocks can be used, etc.
The common feature on pretty much all of them is the lower receiver, which is different than it was for Stoner and for military guns.
AR-15 receivers don’t accommodate a part that’s required for full-auto or burst fire, and modding them to accept the part is a super duper ultra felony - even if you don’t put the part in.
Oh - and the weapon from Armalite used for pilot survival is a COMPLETELY different firearm. It’s the AR-5, and was a 22 hornet takedown rifle that is not useful for combat at all. You can buy one today in .22lr called the AR-7 or “Henry Survival Rifle.”
The “AR” designation just means they were designed by the Armalite Rifle company - the AR-17 was actually a shotgun designed for bird hunting.
Point of fact: AR-15 is actually a trademark owned by Colt. That’s why there’s the Ruger AR-556, and the S&W M&P 15 Sport II, which are marketed as AR-15 style rifles. Kinda like Styrofoam; people misuse the trademark (esp. styrofoam cups; such a thing has never existed) regularly, but it’s still owned by the Dow Chemical Corp. (Or was; I think they sold that division off to E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.)
The trademark probably won’t last too much longer though, as it’s become genercized AND Colt wasn’t the inventor of the product or the name. They also no longer manufacture civilian AR-pattern rifles, so they’re on really shaky grounds for defending the name.
Bayer lost the trademark for Aspirin. Xerox almost lost the trademark to their own name, and had to actually start advertising their products as “photocopiers” instead of “Xerox machines.”
I’m not talking about the Armalite AR-10. Myself, other gun rights activists, and redcoats (gun control proponents) are talking about weapons patterned after the Colt AR-15, which is exclusively semi-automatic.
Fucking LOL
This is what American Civil Religion does to your brain, kids
You’re gonna live in fear and you’re gonna LIKE IT
honestly it’s morons like this who will fuck things up for everyday gun owners who aren’t fuckups. Of course, the number of fuckups with firearms is astounding, just based on the idiots leaving their firearms in unsecured cars.
You’re in fear when you don’t have a gun?
Oh, you’re a fetishist. I get it now. Anyone who disagrees with the addition of more firearms to a country that already has more guns than people is a redcoat to you. An enemy. Not your fellow citizen, not prior service people who look at firearms as tools of war and see that in our goddamned news every fucking week now… no, we’re your enemy, because we value life more than esoteric interpretations of 200 year old dogma.
Y’all give two fuckin’ shits about a well regulated Militia.
If they’re just cosmetic and have no bearing on the functionality, does that make whoever uses them a lamewad cosplayer?
I wanna say Mall Shooter (like Mall Ninja), but…
Yes, thank you for this demonstration of pedantism.
If shape doesn’t matter, why does anyone care about legislating what shapes can be sold?
Because they’re ignorant. Here are a few clips showing their ignorance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0
If you want to violate the Second Amendment, at least educate yourself about the subject of your illegal legislation first.
Okay, so you’d be down for sensible legislation that takes the right to bear arms as an absolute.
Like if we registered and tracked all firearms, without changing who can buy which ones.
Those laws would be infringements, and are illegal under the Second Amendment.
infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Does a right to bear arms mean something besides owning and carrying loaded guns? Because writing down who has which guns does not stop that in any way.
Unless maybe you’re picking the conclusion you want and working backwards.
Here’s a fun one: should full-auto submachineguns be available at 7-11?
I won’t make a comment on whether automatic submachine guns should or shouldn’t be available at a convenience store. But I will state that under the Second Amendment, any law that prevents people from owning and using submachine guns is illegal.
That’s pretty “should,” guy.
That’s straight-up endorsing 7-11’s ability to sell literally any gun to literally anybody. If you have hesitations about whether that’s a fucking terrible idea… good. Maybe we can talk about that.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
Your exceptionally narrow view of and focus on singular word in an amendment is hilarious.
Your lack of English grammar skills is hilarious.
I’d love to violate the second amendment! Can you define it in more than four words?
Sure thing, bud. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Don’t forget the “well regulated” part.
The rest only explains the reason why the amendment was written and doesn’t alter the above facts. Let’s rewrite it a bit to be more understandable:
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.
Is it the right of the well balanced breakfast, or the right of the people, in this case, to keep and eat food? Of course, it is the right of the people. What shall be done with it? It shall not be infringed upon. If you dictate to me what food I am allowed to store in my cupboards and in what circumstances I am allowed to eat it, you are infringing upon my right to keep and eat food.
If your food isn’t for breakfast, that law has nothing to do with it.
Invoking other arguments for eating would be a fallacy. Your own stupid analogy just says: breakfast.
Debating this with you is obviously pointless. Nowhere does the amendment state that arms are only to be used within a militia.
Who’s to say what food is breakfast food? I kinda think that’s part of the point being made here.
I get it, you’re an individualist, you won’t find me arguing against an individuals right to own guns; however I disagree with your analysis. Your interpretation of “infringed” seems to be “anything preventing.” Well-regulated in the context of the 2nd amendment implies the imposition of proper training and discipline. This has actually already been decided.
DC v. Heller (which ruled on the individual right to bear arms in 2008) states:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
It’s not my interpretation of “infringed”. It’s the Merriam-Webster definition of the word.