hamilton on gun control (not really) & militia

That's why they redesigned it to be fully Automatic and called it the M-16. The AR-15 is the civilian copy of the M-16. No soldier in his right mind would go into a war zone with a semi Auto rifle when he can be issued one that is fully automatic.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

the AR-15 can be made automatic if the owner wishes to do so. receiver can be swapped out but you have be registered to do so

you have to register with the feds if one wants to won automatics.

thats why we have so many innocent people getting murdered by assholes with guns. Originally Posted by southtown4488

80% of asshole murderers are gang bangers from the inner city democratic plantations, their guns are either stolen or straw bought, 0zombie...

That's why they redesigned it to be fully Automatic and called it the M-16. The AR-15 is the civilian copy of the M-16. No soldier in his right mind would go into a war zone with a semi Auto rifle when he can be issued one that is fully automatic.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

As usual you are full of shit jim. How about the M1 Grand,?

have to call you out on that one.

1930's? those people were not libs then, not in the truest sense of the word.

gun control fell in both camps. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

A socialistic dim-retard president with a socialistic dim-retard Congress that invoked the Commerce Clause as an excuse to expand Federal authority to the degree that it rendered the Tenth Amendment "a truism" with no independent authority to actually limit the power of Congress -- ergo, "lib-retard":

"National Firearms Act of 1934

The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns." (source)

http://http://themobmuseum.org/blog/...-day-massacre/

the AR-15 can be made automatic if the owner wishes to do so. receiver can be swapped out but you have be registered to do so

you have to register with the feds if one wants to won automatics. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

It's not designed, manufactured or retailed as a fully automatic weapon. Anyone who would modify it would be in violation of federal law.

Jim

As usual you are full of shit jim. How about the M1 Grand,? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What about it? It's nothing but a 30Cal Semi Auto rifle that's mediocre at best.

Jim

The problem is not the 2nd amendment as it is perfectly clear; the problem is with activist judges installed by politicians with agendas.

The Supreme court does not decide if a part of the Constitution is valid but if the laws that are instituted by the government follow the constitution or not. The 2nd amendment of the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is simple. Any law that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in direct violation of the Constitution regardless of if it is the federal, state, or local governments. The 10th Amendment leaves what is not covered in the Constitution to the states. The 2nd amendment should and does trump all.

If having to prove you are who you are to vote is unconstitutional then there should be no doubt that any law infringing upon the right of the people to keep and ear arms is also unconstitutional.

There is a very good reason why there are so few challenges to the 2nd amendment and that is because of its simplicity of words. It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed now does it. I fully believe there should be more challenges to the laws that local governments have that violate the constitution and overstep their rights under the Constitution.

ignoring rant
whenever u wanna have an adult debate feel free to start Originally Posted by southtown4488

This is a good opportunity for you to exit the forum.

The problem is not the 2nd amendment as it is perfectly clear; ..... Originally Posted by The2Dogs

There are some recent "gnashing of teeth" regarding the meaning of the 2nd amendment in order to justify "gun control." It is instructive to examine "the law" at the time of the passage of the 2nd amendment.

There were laws (in the colonies/states) that forbid the indigenous Indians and Slaves from owning/possessing guns, the former based on the existing hostilities and lack of trust and the latter based on the principle that "property cannot own property." At the same time (in the same period) there were laws (in the colonies/states) that REQUIRED the head of the household (which included females) to own at least one firearm, and to implement that MANDATE there were provisions for the government to FURNISH the poor with a firearm and munition materiel for operation of the firearms.

It should be noted that the debate about the application of the Bill of Rights to the states was ongoing after their passage, and it was not until the 20th century that it was determined that certain provisions applied to the states. In addition using the Indians and Slaves as examples for today's "gun control" efforts is factually erroneous, because it took decades for the SCOTUS to determine that amendments in the Bill of Rights applied to non-CITIZENS.....which would mean Indians and Slaves were not entitled to benefits of the protections.

The only "control" that the word "militia" might have to firearms is the MANDATORY OWNERSHIP of them to make the "militia" membership armed. In other words .... just the opposite of the argument apparently employed today.

It's not designed, manufactured or retailed as a fully automatic weapon. Anyone who would modify it would be in violation of federal law.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

its only a violation if you didn't register to have one.

modifiying it would not be in violation of the law if a person purchased and registered a auto receiver part which is classed as a weapon by the ATF.

What about it? It's nothing but a 30Cal Semi Auto rifle that's mediocre at best.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

apparently that is your opinion.

M1 Garand is one of the best rifles of WWII.

"Machinegun. Any weapon which
shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically
more than one shot, without manual reloading,
by a single function of the trigger.
The term shall also include the frame or
receiver of any such weapon, any part
designed and intended solely and exclusively,
or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a
weapon into a machine gun, and any
combination of parts from which a machine
gun can be assembled if such parts
are in the possession or under the control
of a person."

apparently that is your opinion.

M1 Garand is one of the best rifles of WWII. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Maybe for that time period. But as far as today if we were in a War Zone together and you were holding an M1 Garand, I would wish ya luck.

Jim

its only a violation if you didn't register to have one.

modifiying it would not be in violation of the law if a person purchased and registered a auto receiver part which is classed as a weapon by the ATF. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I understand that. I am referring to the average person converting an otherwise semi auto weapon such as the AR-15 into fully automatic. From what I understand it's not really hard to do, you don't have to be a certified Gun smith to accomplish the conversion.

Jim