Why Everyone Needs An AR-15

[JosephZ]

Do you know what a license is?

A legal permission given by a competent authority, such as a government or a business, allowing someone to carry out activities that would be illegal without this right

Yes, I know what a license is. And this may surprise you, but a majority of veterans also support the issuance of a license to own a gun.

63% of Veterans Believe Every State Should Require a License to Own a Firearm

A handful of states already have laws in place that require licensing. Some results show an improvement in shootings and suicide numbers after licensing mandates take effect. According to the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, the state of Connecticut saw a 28% reduction in gun violence after passing its licensure law. While the majority is in favor, 29.7% of Veterans are against the idea, and 7.3% are unsure if owners should be licensed.

 

[dogs4thewin]

A comprehensive approach to gun control has to be made, not just a ban on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines to save the most lives, but if a proposal was made just to ban AR-15s and similar style weapons, then of anyone wanting to save lives would take it. Saving some lives is better than saving none.

but the problem is as I pointed out that if people are for BANNING assault weapons, but not for BANNING handguns they are for BANNING the wrong guns as FAR fewer lives are lost as a result of "assault weapons". You want it to be about saving the MOST lives.

Another real world example 9/11 when President Bush found out that the last plane ( the one that ended up going down in PA somewhere had gone off the map he ordered the plane shot down ( No One yet realized that the people on the plane had overpowered the highjackers. Now, President Bush knew that in doing so it was almost CERTAIN that all the civilians on that plane would die, yet he ordered it because it was "better" for that handful of people to die ( compareivly speaking than for that plane to crash into who knew what that could take 1000s of lives. Likewise if the choices are saving a few lives as compared to many lives which makes more sense.

Put differently suppose reform is not an option and they could EITHER ban handguns or other guns which is better?

 

[HARK!]

A Fox News poll in 2023 found that 61% of Americans support a ban on assault weapons.

FOX polls LOL!

FOX conducted numerous polls on this evening. When they didn't get the desired results; they took down the previous poll, and started a new one. When they still didn't get the desired results; they created their own results.

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you know what a license is?

A legal permission given by a competent authority, such as a government or a business, allowing someone to carry out activities that would be illegal without this right

license Definition, Meaning & Usage | Justia Legal Dictionary

license - A legal permission given by a competent authority, such as a government or a business, allowing someone to carry out activities that would be illegal without this right

dictionary.justia.com

By that logic Liberals could be required a license to speak. That way if they speak against God given rights, some man claiming to have the authority of God can revoke their permission to speak.

"License to speak" won't be too far-fetched of an idea once "Disinformation" becomes such a big problem that the government has to step in and take control of who can speak, and what they can say.

 

[HARK!]

Yes, I know what a license is. And this may surprise you, but a majority of veterans also support the issuance of a license to own a gun.

How does that fit in with defending the Constitution from domestic enemies?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, I know what a license is. And this may surprise you, but a majority of veterans also support the issuance of a license to own a gun.

63% of Veterans Believe Every State Should Require a License to Own a Firearm

A handful of states already have laws in place that require licensing. Some results show an improvement in shootings and suicide numbers after licensing mandates take effect. According to the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, the state of Connecticut saw a 28% reduction in gun violence after passing its licensure law. While the majority is in favor, 29.7% of Veterans are against the idea, and 7.3% are unsure if owners should be licensed.

Would the Right of the People to be licensed to keep and bear arms be able to be infringed?
If so, then the right to keep and bear arms could be infringed as well.

 

[HARK!]

"License to speak" won't be too far-fetched of an idea once "Disinformation" becomes such a big problem that the government has to step in and take control of who can speak, and what they can say.

Good point.

 

[HARK!]

Would the Right of the People to be licensed to keep and bear arms be able to be infringed?
If so, then the right to keep and bear arms could be infringed as well.

The SCOTUS already ruled on that. Soon they will rule on AR-15s and these wacky arguments can be laid to rest.

 

[Aldebaran]

The SCOTUS already ruled on that. Soon they will rule on AR-15s and these wacky arguments can be laid to rest.

I can hardly wait!

 

[RDKirk]

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:


(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office | U.S. Army Center of Military History

The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires us to disobey illegal orders--according to the Constitution--from whoever issues them, including the President.

The problem soldiers have, though, is that we are not the Supreme Court nor the Congress, and it's actually one of those bodies that is invested by the Constitution to determine when the President has given an illegal order. So, a soldier refusing to obey the president on that ground must immediately look to the Congress or the Supreme Court to back him up. If both the Congress and the Supreme Court roll over for the President, the soldier has no Constitutional ground to stand on.

Edit: Oh, and "illegal order" has a specific definition. An illegal order is an order to commit an act for which the person could otherwise be prosecuted himself. For example, a number of years ago, an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel medical officer refused orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he believed the US involvement in Afghanistan was unconstitutional.

The problem: Getting on a plane and flying to Afghanistan is not, in itself, a criminal act. An "illegal order" is an order to commit an act that is already defined as a crime. Even if the Supreme Court had ruled the deployment was somehow unconstitutional, none of the soldiers who had deployed there would have been prosecuted because the act of getting on the plane was not, in itself, a crime.

 

[HARK!]

I can hardly wait!

This report came out 5 days ago:

Supreme Court Ruling To End All "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Bans Nationwide Put In Motion!​

 

[FireDragon76]

No matter what weapon you ban there will always be another weapon at the top of that list. If you ban anything at the top of any list the second place on that list then becomes the top of the list. It’s a never ending battle until all weapons are banned.

If we let lawbreaking in the abstract set the standards, why bother having any laws at all?

 

[HARK!]

If we let lawbreaking in the abstract set the standards, why bother having any laws at all?

Here is the law of the land:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[JosephZ]

FOX polls LOL!

That was one of three polls I provided and they all have similar numbers.

Here's another:

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of voters support banning assault-style weapons, including 82% of Democrats, 61% of independents and 53% of Republicans.

 

[HARK!]

Here's another:

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of voters support banning assault-style weapons, including 82% of Democrats, 61% of independents and 53% of Republicans.

Riiiight. I thought that I asked you for a reliable source.

No matter. Thank our Father in heaven that we have a Constitution that serves to protect our God given rights against mob rule.

 

[JosephZ]

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.." —Bill Clinton USA Today--3-11-93, page 2a

That quote leaves off the part where he says he strongly supports the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.

"You know, you can't have – be so fixated on a desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles. It's something that I strongly support." -- Bill Clinton

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/bill-clinton-quote-taken-out-of-context/

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal"--Janet Reno

This one is fabricated.

FACT CHECK: Did Janet Reno Advocate the Prohibition of Private Firearms?

While Janet Reno spoke at length about guns in December 1993, we found extensive evidence indicating a quote attributed to her was fabricated.

www.snopes.com

DIANE FEINSTEIN (California Senator, author of "Feinstein Amendment" which became the ’94 gun ban): "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." (60 Minutes episode, CBS) [Sen Feinstein holds a CCP]

Senator Feinstein was talking about assault style weapons only, not all guns.

"Let me be clear: If an individual wants to purchase a weapon for hunting or self-defense, I support that right." -- Senator Feinstein

NRA leader mangles Feinstein quote about taking guns

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has offered a bill to ban bump fire stocks after police found 12 rifles equipped with t

www.politifact.com

 

[discombobulated1]

I have trouble picturing a morally acceptable use of any of the weapons on his table. If you live in an area like Alaska where you're occasionally attacked by polar bears, then okay. But I don't think that's what he has in mind. All of his video clips were about using the weapons on human beings.

If said human beings are trying to kill you..........uh... yeh, I'd like to have a AR 15 or any kind of gun, just saying

 

[JosephZ]

The SCOTUS already ruled on that. Soon they will rule on AR-15s and these wacky arguments can be laid to rest.

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on whether or not a license to buy or own a firearm is constitutional yet. There are currently three states; Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York, that require a license to own a firearm, and the license must be renewed periodically and remain valid as long as the person owns the weapon.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on whether or not a license to buy or own a firearm is constitutional yet. There are currently three states; Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York, that require a license to own a firearm, and the license must be renewed periodically and remain valid as long as the person owns the weapon.

and in 29 states there is no need to have a permit to carry consealed and I believe that in one state (of that 29) they will not even issue permits even if someone WANTED one.

 

[HARK!]

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on whether or not a license to buy or own a firearm is constitutional yet. There are currently three states; Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York, that require a license to own a firearm, and the license must be renewed periodically and remain valid as long as the person owns the weapon.

We need to work on that next.

You don't need permission to exercise a right.


Now how about we get back on topic.