Court Rules Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect AR-15s
Read Time:19 Second
A federal court ruled on Friday that AR-15 rifles, the high-powered rifle used in the Parkland mass shooting, as well as similar military-style rifles and high capacity magazines are not protected under the Second Amendment. “AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment […]…
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Glenn, I have to agree with what you are saying. I simply think that there are people who buy the AR 15 and similar types of assault rifle look alikes because they think they look cool. But part of that “looking cool” is their imagination of being a warrior and being the ultimate defender of something. It is sort of like when a new Batman or Star Wars toy comes out, the kids have just got to have it. Granted there are a few that want it just for their collection but a lot of the Billy Bobs want it because it makes them feel good. A whole lot of people have not a clue what the M1 Girand rifle looks like. Man I do. I fell in love with mine at P.I. When we got ours we had to sand down the wooden stocks until it was new wood and bring them back to life with nothing but linseed oil. We had to be able to disassemble them and reassemble them in 30 seconds or less. Of course this was before everyone went for fire power. The saying in those days was the most dangerous thing on earth was a Marine and his rifle. Yep, and I bought into that. If I could see a head in 500 yards or less I could make a kill with no scope, if he would just be still long enough for the bullet to get there. 🙂 Of course it only held an eight round clip, but, if you didn’t loose your thumb you could reload pretty damned quick.
It’s not as though I don’t want these things controlled and effectively banned for practical purposes, but I have to be amused by the double-think, as the right to bear arms suitable for military use is the stated purpose of the second amendment – in the first place (see what I did there?) The constitution does not mention self-defense or duck hunting.
Our military hasn’t used semiautomatic rifles since the Korean Conflict and those had wooden stocks and relatively small magazines and would probably not be seen as military weapons today.
It always amuses me to point out that the Semi-auto M1 Garand actually used stripper clips to feed the magazine, but the public, including judges and legislators and others don’t know the difference or care. The M1 Carbine looks like a wood stock hunting rifle too although they were totally phased out at the beginning of the Vietnam war. The “enemy” was using AK-47 assault rifles to out-gun us because automatic weapons are very much more powerful and semi-auto just doesn’t cut it for military purposes.
I think we have to drop this “military style” yammering and more so the “weapons of war on the street” sloganeering. It can only lead to more misleading legislation as full of holes as a paper target – as we did the last time. Ban just the AR clones and you allow more other brands than I can count. Who cares about plastic stocks, pistol grips and appearance? It’s the capacity dummy, not the appearance.