MAC - Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional

MAC - Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional

This is a discussion on MAC - Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Yet another excellent video on the pending AWB from MAC....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: MAC - Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,847

    MAC - Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional

    Yet another excellent video on the pending AWB from MAC.

    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,999
    What????? Since when does our military use the AR-15? M-16's, yes, but the AR?

    I usually like this guy's material, but I don't quite get this one.

    Or am I missing something?
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array slugger6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,040
    An interested interpretation. Let's see what happens.
    "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,847
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    What????? Since when does our military use the AR-15? M-16's, yes, but the AR?

    I usually like this guy's material, but I don't quite get this one.

    Or am I missing something?
    I think it makes a good argument. If you take his interpretation of the court's standard, then select fire long guns should be available to the US citizen. If that's arguable, then saying that a long gun similar in design without the select fire capability shouldn't fall within the legal realm of any ban.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    585
    We'll be lucky if we get a SC holding in support of semi auto AR's and >10 mags. The argument for 2A support of select fire capability should be left for another day, after the easier objective is secured. The bottom line is that confusing the AR and select fire weapons hurts us rather than helps us
    Hopyard likes this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array MilitaryArms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    What????? Since when does our military use the AR-15? M-16's, yes, but the AR?

    I usually like this guy's material, but I don't quite get this one.

    Or am I missing something?
    Let me elaborate.

    First, the militia and the military aren't synonymous. The AR15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16. While the M16 is in common use by the US military the AR15 is in common use by the militia (you and me). A similar argument could be made for the repeal of the NFA Act however that's not the point of this video.

    Millions of AR15's have been sold to able bodied citizens who comprise the militia under most definitions included the definition used by the SCOTUS in Miller. As such the AR15 is in common use by the militia and it's select fire counterpart is in common use by the US military. The gun grabbers would have us believe the AR15 and the M16 are in essence the same thing (and they are sans one functional difference), we can use this to our advantage as well.
    Please visit my YouTube channel: The Military Arms Channel

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array MilitaryArms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by bklynboy View Post
    We'll be lucky if we get a SC holding in support of semi auto AR's and >10 mags. The argument for 2A support of select fire capability should be left for another day, after the easier objective is secured. The bottom line is that confusing the AR and select fire weapons hurts us rather than helps us
    Exactly.
    Please visit my YouTube channel: The Military Arms Channel

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,999
    Quote Originally Posted by MilitaryArms View Post
    Let me elaborate.

    First, the militia and the military aren't synonymous. The AR15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16. While the M16 is in common use by the US military the AR15 is in common use by the militia (you and me). A similar argument could be made for the repeal of the NFA Act however that's not the point of this video.

    Millions of AR15's have been sold to able bodied citizens who comprise the militia under most definitions included the definition used by the SCOTUS in Miller. As such the AR15 is in common use by the militia and it's select fire counterpart is in common use by the US military. The gun grabbers would have us believe the AR15 and the M16 are in essence the same thing (and they are sans one functional difference), we can use this to our advantage as well.
    I understand all of that, but in the video, he clearly says that AR-15's "are commonly used firearms by the military, by our U.S. military, right now."
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    What????? Since when does our military use the AR-15? M-16's, yes, but the AR?

    I usually like this guy's material, but I don't quite get this one.

    Or am I missing something?
    Mac is just using the definition provided by the anti-gun politicians. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

    Schumer, Fienstein, Biden, Boxer, the Brady Bunch, et al... all the anti-gun libs say that AR-15's are military style weapons. Therefore, the AR-15 is a military style weapon. They can't go back and now say "Well, AR-15's are just a semi-automatic sporting rifle if they are trying to ban them!"

    The anti-gun politicians are "locked in" to the notion that AR-15's are military weapons.


    Edit: Sorry Mac, I didn't see your explanation. Sorry for making an assumption. However, I think what I posted is also part of the argument.

    If the politicians want to play the game and admit AR-15's are merely semi-automatic sporting rifles... How then can they justify trying to ban them? They are the ones whe defined AR's as evil military style weapons, and they are locked in to that definition.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by MilitaryArms View Post
    Let me elaborate.

    First, the militia and the military aren't synonymous. The AR15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16. While the M16 is in common use by the US military the AR15 is in common use by the militia (you and me). A similar argument could be made for the repeal of the NFA Act however that's not the point of this video.

    Millions of AR15's have been sold to able bodied citizens who comprise the militia under most definitions included the definition used by the SCOTUS in Miller. As such the AR15 is in common use by the militia and it's select fire counterpart is in common use by the US military. The gun grabbers would have us believe the AR15 and the M16 are in essence the same thing (and they are sans one functional difference), we can use this to our advantage as well.
    I've always disagreed with the ruling in regarding both Miller and Heller cases. So, when the AR-15 becomes systematically banned to the point that all semi-automatics are banned, then handguns, etc - the common gun of the militia will be the gun that hasn't yet been banned. I would interpret the 2A to protect the right of the citizens of the US to wield the standard issue weaponry that the military uses in combat. If the military won't use an AR-15, how could it possibly be an effective means to protect the citizens right to life and liberty if it is not an effective combat-proven weapon?

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array MilitaryArms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Mac is just using the definition provided by the anti-gun politicians. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
    Yup, you get it.
    Please visit my YouTube channel: The Military Arms Channel

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    I've always disagreed with the ruling in regarding both Miller and Heller cases. So, when the AR-15 becomes systematically banned to the point that all semi-automatics are banned, then handguns, etc - the common gun of the militia will be the gun that hasn't yet been banned. I would interpret the 2A to protect the right of the citizens of the US to wield the standard issue weaponry that the military uses in combat. If the military won't use an AR-15, how could it possibly be an effective means to protect the citizens right to life and liberty if it is not an effective combat-proven weapon?
    But it depends. If you or I own them in semi-automatic, they're "assault rifles." If the government owns them in full select-fire, they're "sport utility rifles."
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  13. #13
    Member Array mg27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    I understand all of that, but in the video, he clearly says that AR-15's "are commonly used firearms by the military, by our U.S. military, right now."
    I believe he also stated that the weapon is commonly used by the militia which would be You and me or We The People .

    Only concern I have is the part when he said, "IF the courts do their job".

    Anyway, Good video

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array VBVAGUY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,196
    Excellent video. Now let us pray that it goes our way. God Bless

  15. #15
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    What????? Since when does our military use the AR-15? M-16's, yes, but the AR?

    I usually like this guy's material, but I don't quite get this one.

    Or am I missing something?
    WHY YES YOU ARE!!!!

    It means we should be able to own M-16s etc.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

is banning select fire unconstitutional

,

is the ban on select fire guns unconstitutional

,

should macpalites have right to ban assult weapons

Click on a term to search for related topics.