Out of all bad things there usually comes something good. Maybe now that this has happened close to home, the Republicans, after supporting gun rights for so long, will realize that an AR-15 was manufactured for one reason and it wasn’t for hunting.
Interesting letter, Mr. Nice. Now please tell us how many Dems own AR-15s or any semiautomatic rifle, and have willingly given them up, along with refusing their protection details that carry semiautomatic rifles. Also, please let us know how many AR-15s are used for hunting vs. being used for assassination attempts. You wouldn’t ban all knives, or bats, or pointy and clubby things because they were used to kill or maim someone, would you?
How dumb does anyone have to be to believe that those who wrote the 2nd Amendment, intended that anyone, without any restrictions, should be allowed to own and run freely around with any kind of future weapons designed to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible? Only gun nuts with no regard for all the innocent children and adults killed, would be so brainless and careless! Think about all the damage done by the deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd! And what is the good part? Any?
Nobody is dumb. No one... founding fathers, founding mothers or floundering kin of any sort... thinks anyone else "should be allowed to own and run freely around with any kind of future weapons designed to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible." No one.
Back to the founders... do you think they would approve of equipping the Continental Army with rapid firing rifles if they could? Do you think they would approve of such weapons even if the British Army was limited to muzzle loaders? American colonists witnessed changes in firearms from the Blunderbuss of the 1600s to rifled muskets used in the latter half of the 1700s. Don't you think the founders believed firearms would continue to change after the War for Independence concluded?
Exactly, Ray! You got my point! That’s why the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted! The Founders never meant for the general public to own any kind of future fire arms. The Amendment refers to the militia, not public in general. Quite logical, if you think about it.
No, Jorg... the founders guaranteed the right of Americans to bear arms. There is no misinterpretation except in a belief that Americans would have to muster at their local armory as a condition to own and operate firearms. We have had this discussion many times over. Each time your convincing argument why collective ownership over individual ownership is the correct interpretation fails to appear. (It's not about punctuation.) Your interpretation that only a duly formed militia is allowed to possess firearms seems to conflict with an earlier point made by you in a past discussion... that homeowners should be allowed to own single shot firearms for home protection. Gosh, hope no Polar Bears wander into your kitchen looking for popsicles... what if you missed?
How dumb does someone have to believe that the following "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means that people should be allowed to run freely around and kill as many people as possible?" That is not what the second amendment states, it may be YOUR stupid interpretation to attempt to support your brain dead argument, but it is not what the second amendment says.
'In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court finally did strike down a gun control regulation, in this case a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing a handgun in the District of Columbia. A majority of the Supreme Court adopted the main conclusions and many of the arguments advanced by the revisionist commentators, ruling that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."
Hey bozo, nutso, if you feel you don't need a fence around your compound, or you don't need dogs, or video cameras or lights to illuminate your compound is your choice. But Jorg doesn't get to decide if the older lady next door has a right to DEFEND herself by having a gun inside her nightstand.
The second amendment does NOT say it is okay to own a weapon to kill others, but it does allow every day citizens the right to defend themselves.
I disagree. AR-15 rifles and similar firearms are manufactured for and used by hunters. I always thought it was unsportsmanlike of sportsmen to hunt with high-capacity magazines until late 2022.
There are times, sadly, when it's necessary to hunt large predators like Polar or Grizzly Bears. They can pose deadly threats to humans. The ability to discharge several rounds rapidly can make a huge difference. I know what you're thinking... we don't live in Canada and we're several hundred miles away from Montana. However, closer to home, in late 2022, progressive Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 856 into law. It allows unlimited hunting of wild pigs due to the invasive wild pig population growing to 400,000 across 56 or the state's 58 counties. I'm not sure how much you know about wild pigs... they can have 4-inch tusks and weigh up to 300 pounds. Some adult boars have grown to as many as 500 pounds. They are much faster than humans and they will charge a hunter. One shot may not stop them. Several rounds from a weapon like an AR-15 may be required to bring a wild pig down.
So, even though AR-15s are used legitimately for hunting, I personally see no reason for me to own one. I am not a huntsman.
We all know you have never fired an AR-15 Mr. Nice - you have never taken a firearm safety course - or a hunter education course - or participated in any conservation initiatives brought on by local hunting organization like Ducks Unlimited - yet here you are pretending to be an authority an a subject you know nothing about. It baffles me when grown men do that. Thats what children do. Its a word I've used a lot here - its solipsism - ignorance - and the ego/fear dichotomy that usually ends up with a failed appeal to authority. You are lucky enough to live in a nice/safe urban environment where predators are not a threat (in the early days here in California Grizzly Bears were hunting humans) And Ray mentioned the pigs here in California.....they are some of the nastiest critters you will ever come across - usually we use AR-10s for hog hunting - the 15s dont really do the job safely enough. If you don't put one of those things down before charging distance - it will disembowel you. You are blessed enough to go to the super market for food when you are hungry - and you have the police to call when you are in trouble. Believe it or not Mr. Nice - there are people in America who don't have a local grocery store or police force to protect them from threats or feed themselves. Just because you live a very sheltered life - doesn't mean that others walk the same walk. And I wont get into the fact that taking away rights from law abiding citizens because bad people do bad things will always be illogical - and the fact that the Bill of Rights are 10 Amendments which are granted to us by our Creator (God) not our government (man) - because those obvious facts are just lost on liberals for some reason. The entire premise of this LTE is irresponsible. An AR-15 is just a basic tool like any other for the right person - no less dangerous than a chain saw or blow torch.
LittleFooter: And of course, very convenient for someone who wants to take down as many innocent people as posible, and as quickly as possible. Who has the right to deny anyone that kind of sporty pleasure, and what else could they use for such a divine show of power over others, if they hadn’t easy access to weapons of mass assault? Just a knife, or what? Give me a break!
As of yesterday, more than 1700 people shot in Chicago and 303 of them have died. Handguns are the firearm of choice in Chi-Town not shoulder fired weapons like AR-15s. Keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them violently is key, as well as eradicating the root causes that have not been addressed by Democratic Party leadership for several decades. It's just too easy to heap blame for those tragic deaths on responsible gun owners.
Jorg, do you have a fence around your yard? If so why? Do you own a weapon? A gun perhaps? If not why not? Do you at least have a fake rubber knife to fend off the evil doers? Is Joe Biden's life more important than yours and if so please explain why? If Joe was assassinated tomorrow then another brain dead person, Kamala, would be appointed. So it's obviously no big deal if Joe were assassinated because another human being would be named president. If Kamala were assassinated, then the new VP would become president. If the pope was assassinated then a new human pope would be named the new pope. Why should a president or the pope be entitled to protection and safety that is not afforded to every citizen? At this juncture, Joe Biden's life has little to no value so why should tax payers pay millions or billions each year to protect a worthless person and even if he did have worth, why isn't he treated the same as me and or even you? Do you have no value and your life is not worth protecting? Bad example, sorry. Obama would tell Joe to take a pill and wave goodbye. All lives MATTER, all lives either deserve protection or NO lives deserve protection. So what is it, remember you are being recorded to help all liberals who are rehabbing and hoping to join reality the opportunity to be cured by TDS.
Ouch! Wags... I did not see this post until this morning. You and I share some ideas philosophically re: policies founded on conservative values, but the tone and content of your comments two days ago go beyond the pale. I would prefer to converse about AR-15s and legitimate uses for that style of rifle, the Second Amendment, and how we can keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them for violence. All that can be done without cavalierly suggesting if one of our leaders is assassinated then someone else will step up as if that's the way it's supposed to be. It's not. Saying "Joe Biden's life has little to no value" and "Obama would tell Joe to take a pill and wave goodbye" bring no value IMO to these pages.
I think you're correct. An AR-10 firing .308 Winchester would be a better choice. However, I wouldn't set out hunting feral hogs without a Colt Anaconda strapped to my hip.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan on Tuesday ruled that New Jersey’s ban on the AR-15 violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Meaning the AR-15 IS NOT an assault rifle by law. So now you clowns can stop repeating that BS line when trying to steal our Constitutional rights and scare people. AR does not stand for "assault rifle" you dummies - it stands for Armalite. Anyways - finally a step in the right direction for the 2nd Amendment.
“The AR-15 provision of the Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for use of self-defense within the home,” Sheridan wrote in his 69-page ruling.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(18) comments
Interesting letter, Mr. Nice. Now please tell us how many Dems own AR-15s or any semiautomatic rifle, and have willingly given them up, along with refusing their protection details that carry semiautomatic rifles. Also, please let us know how many AR-15s are used for hunting vs. being used for assassination attempts. You wouldn’t ban all knives, or bats, or pointy and clubby things because they were used to kill or maim someone, would you?
How dumb does anyone have to be to believe that those who wrote the 2nd Amendment, intended that anyone, without any restrictions, should be allowed to own and run freely around with any kind of future weapons designed to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible? Only gun nuts with no regard for all the innocent children and adults killed, would be so brainless and careless! Think about all the damage done by the deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd! And what is the good part? Any?
Hello, Jorg
Nobody is dumb. No one... founding fathers, founding mothers or floundering kin of any sort... thinks anyone else "should be allowed to own and run freely around with any kind of future weapons designed to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible." No one.
Back to the founders... do you think they would approve of equipping the Continental Army with rapid firing rifles if they could? Do you think they would approve of such weapons even if the British Army was limited to muzzle loaders? American colonists witnessed changes in firearms from the Blunderbuss of the 1600s to rifled muskets used in the latter half of the 1700s. Don't you think the founders believed firearms would continue to change after the War for Independence concluded?
Exactly, Ray! You got my point! That’s why the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted! The Founders never meant for the general public to own any kind of future fire arms. The Amendment refers to the militia, not public in general. Quite logical, if you think about it.
No, Jorg... the founders guaranteed the right of Americans to bear arms. There is no misinterpretation except in a belief that Americans would have to muster at their local armory as a condition to own and operate firearms. We have had this discussion many times over. Each time your convincing argument why collective ownership over individual ownership is the correct interpretation fails to appear. (It's not about punctuation.) Your interpretation that only a duly formed militia is allowed to possess firearms seems to conflict with an earlier point made by you in a past discussion... that homeowners should be allowed to own single shot firearms for home protection. Gosh, hope no Polar Bears wander into your kitchen looking for popsicles... what if you missed?
Too serious an issue to mess up with nonsense, Ray! I’m out.
Wow, Ray! You achieved a knockout of Jorg in one round. Impressive. We all need to watch out for Polar Bears looking for popsicles.
How dumb does someone have to believe that the following "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means that people should be allowed to run freely around and kill as many people as possible?" That is not what the second amendment states, it may be YOUR stupid interpretation to attempt to support your brain dead argument, but it is not what the second amendment says.
'In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court finally did strike down a gun control regulation, in this case a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing a handgun in the District of Columbia. A majority of the Supreme Court adopted the main conclusions and many of the arguments advanced by the revisionist commentators, ruling that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."
Hey bozo, nutso, if you feel you don't need a fence around your compound, or you don't need dogs, or video cameras or lights to illuminate your compound is your choice. But Jorg doesn't get to decide if the older lady next door has a right to DEFEND herself by having a gun inside her nightstand.
The second amendment does NOT say it is okay to own a weapon to kill others, but it does allow every day citizens the right to defend themselves.
Good afternoon, Robert
I disagree. AR-15 rifles and similar firearms are manufactured for and used by hunters. I always thought it was unsportsmanlike of sportsmen to hunt with high-capacity magazines until late 2022.
There are times, sadly, when it's necessary to hunt large predators like Polar or Grizzly Bears. They can pose deadly threats to humans. The ability to discharge several rounds rapidly can make a huge difference. I know what you're thinking... we don't live in Canada and we're several hundred miles away from Montana. However, closer to home, in late 2022, progressive Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 856 into law. It allows unlimited hunting of wild pigs due to the invasive wild pig population growing to 400,000 across 56 or the state's 58 counties. I'm not sure how much you know about wild pigs... they can have 4-inch tusks and weigh up to 300 pounds. Some adult boars have grown to as many as 500 pounds. They are much faster than humans and they will charge a hunter. One shot may not stop them. Several rounds from a weapon like an AR-15 may be required to bring a wild pig down.
So, even though AR-15s are used legitimately for hunting, I personally see no reason for me to own one. I am not a huntsman.
We all know you have never fired an AR-15 Mr. Nice - you have never taken a firearm safety course - or a hunter education course - or participated in any conservation initiatives brought on by local hunting organization like Ducks Unlimited - yet here you are pretending to be an authority an a subject you know nothing about. It baffles me when grown men do that. Thats what children do. Its a word I've used a lot here - its solipsism - ignorance - and the ego/fear dichotomy that usually ends up with a failed appeal to authority. You are lucky enough to live in a nice/safe urban environment where predators are not a threat (in the early days here in California Grizzly Bears were hunting humans) And Ray mentioned the pigs here in California.....they are some of the nastiest critters you will ever come across - usually we use AR-10s for hog hunting - the 15s dont really do the job safely enough. If you don't put one of those things down before charging distance - it will disembowel you. You are blessed enough to go to the super market for food when you are hungry - and you have the police to call when you are in trouble. Believe it or not Mr. Nice - there are people in America who don't have a local grocery store or police force to protect them from threats or feed themselves. Just because you live a very sheltered life - doesn't mean that others walk the same walk. And I wont get into the fact that taking away rights from law abiding citizens because bad people do bad things will always be illogical - and the fact that the Bill of Rights are 10 Amendments which are granted to us by our Creator (God) not our government (man) - because those obvious facts are just lost on liberals for some reason. The entire premise of this LTE is irresponsible. An AR-15 is just a basic tool like any other for the right person - no less dangerous than a chain saw or blow torch.
LittleFooter: And of course, very convenient for someone who wants to take down as many innocent people as posible, and as quickly as possible. Who has the right to deny anyone that kind of sporty pleasure, and what else could they use for such a divine show of power over others, if they hadn’t easy access to weapons of mass assault? Just a knife, or what? Give me a break!
Jorg
As of yesterday, more than 1700 people shot in Chicago and 303 of them have died. Handguns are the firearm of choice in Chi-Town not shoulder fired weapons like AR-15s. Keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them violently is key, as well as eradicating the root causes that have not been addressed by Democratic Party leadership for several decades. It's just too easy to heap blame for those tragic deaths on responsible gun owners.
Jorg, do you have a fence around your yard? If so why? Do you own a weapon? A gun perhaps? If not why not? Do you at least have a fake rubber knife to fend off the evil doers? Is Joe Biden's life more important than yours and if so please explain why? If Joe was assassinated tomorrow then another brain dead person, Kamala, would be appointed. So it's obviously no big deal if Joe were assassinated because another human being would be named president. If Kamala were assassinated, then the new VP would become president. If the pope was assassinated then a new human pope would be named the new pope. Why should a president or the pope be entitled to protection and safety that is not afforded to every citizen? At this juncture, Joe Biden's life has little to no value so why should tax payers pay millions or billions each year to protect a worthless person and even if he did have worth, why isn't he treated the same as me and or even you? Do you have no value and your life is not worth protecting? Bad example, sorry. Obama would tell Joe to take a pill and wave goodbye. All lives MATTER, all lives either deserve protection or NO lives deserve protection. So what is it, remember you are being recorded to help all liberals who are rehabbing and hoping to join reality the opportunity to be cured by TDS.
Ouch! Wags... I did not see this post until this morning. You and I share some ideas philosophically re: policies founded on conservative values, but the tone and content of your comments two days ago go beyond the pale. I would prefer to converse about AR-15s and legitimate uses for that style of rifle, the Second Amendment, and how we can keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them for violence. All that can be done without cavalierly suggesting if one of our leaders is assassinated then someone else will step up as if that's the way it's supposed to be. It's not. Saying "Joe Biden's life has little to no value" and "Obama would tell Joe to take a pill and wave goodbye" bring no value IMO to these pages.
Can you explain what you mean here
Hello, LittleFoot
I think you're correct. An AR-10 firing .308 Winchester would be a better choice. However, I wouldn't set out hunting feral hogs without a Colt Anaconda strapped to my hip.
You are always the right energy Ray. Based in truth. God bless you.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan on Tuesday ruled that New Jersey’s ban on the AR-15 violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Meaning the AR-15 IS NOT an assault rifle by law. So now you clowns can stop repeating that BS line when trying to steal our Constitutional rights and scare people. AR does not stand for "assault rifle" you dummies - it stands for Armalite. Anyways - finally a step in the right direction for the 2nd Amendment.
“The AR-15 provision of the Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for use of self-defense within the home,” Sheridan wrote in his 69-page ruling.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.