Bad news for the AWB supporters

[Danno 1,228]

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they "strongly favored" or "somewhat favored" renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf

With all due respect...who cares? Your rights to own firearms are not a matter do be decided by poll or votes. The vast majority of Americans would also want warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches of criminals, pornography banned, etc. The bill of rights protects that which is NOT popular, not that which is popular. And as we know, the 2nd amendment is settled law. It protects the individual right to own firearms.

Only if you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute - that no regulation or restrictions on what kind of arms an individual has a right to bear. If you take 2nd Amendment in a literal interpretation, then a citizen should have the right to carry a nuclear bomb in a briefcase if they so choose.

It's more than a little interesting that you believe The second Amendment was written in a "different time" so therefor we should revisit it according to todays standards of tech?

I wonder if you accept this same premise on the citizenship granted to anyone born here?

Certainly our Forefathers never imagined the rapid manor in which a child laden woman can arrive and and even encouragement of free medical care offered to

foreign nationals outside our borders.

Think we should modify that clause too FancyPants?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they "strongly favored" or "somewhat favored" renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf

With all due respect...who cares? Your rights to own firearms are not a matter do be decided by poll or votes. The vast majority of Americans would also want warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches of criminals, pornography banned, etc. The bill of rights protects that which is NOT popular, not that which is popular. And as we know, the 2nd amendment is settled law. It protects the individual right to own firearms.

Only if you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute - that no regulation or restrictions on what kind of arms an individual has a right to bear. If you take 2nd Amendment in a literal interpretation, then a citizen should have the right to carry a nuclear bomb in a briefcase if they so choose.

It's more than a little interesting that you believe The second Amendment was written in a "different time" so therefor we should revisit it according to todays standards of tech?

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they "strongly favored" or "somewhat favored" renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf

With all due respect...who cares? Your rights to own firearms are not a matter do be decided by poll or votes. The vast majority of Americans would also want warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches of criminals, pornography banned, etc. The bill of rights protects that which is NOT popular, not that which is popular. And as we know, the 2nd amendment is settled law. It protects the individual right to own firearms.

Only if you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute - that no regulation or restrictions on what kind of arms an individual has a right to bear. If you take 2nd Amendment in a literal interpretation, then a citizen should have the right to carry a nuclear bomb in a briefcase if they so choose.

If one reads the Heller decision, one will see this exact argument is addressed. The second amendment was designed specifically to be a deterrent to our own government oppressing the population of our own country. Nuclear weapons have no use in oppressing in counties domestic populations. Of all the oppressed populations in the world, none have ever been oppressed by nuclear weapons. The amendment was designed to allow the populace the exact type of firearms in use by the military that may oppress it. We don't need battleships either.

Arguing that the second amendment protects the ownership of nuclear weapons is as ludicrous as arguing it protects hunting. I will do neither. Nor will I argue if it is a matter of opinion polls any more than the right to be Muslim, Catholic, or Scientologist.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Stephen,

Historical context was provided in another of your "gun" threads. it will also serve you well to understand a little history. I suggest reading ... unless you like to be spoon fed.

Read my response here.

How much do you want to bet I read it a long time ago, read it several times and by several authors?

The second amendment was written at exactly the time the first amendment was written. Would one suggest we be allowed only the communication types we had in 1789? Would one argue that on the internet...or the newspaper? Exactly how can one argue in any means visible by masses, that the second amendment is outdated and the first is not? Does the first amendment apply to Buddists? Who of our founding fathers was thinking of them? How about scientologists? Lets go to the 4th amendment. Certainly it does not protect us from wiretaps! It does? But wait, there were no tellephones in 1789, how is that possible?

The second amendment is as alive and well in 2009 as it was in 1789. As witnessed by the Heleer decision last summer, that was 2008. And oddly enough it has survived direct challenges longer than any of the other amendments, last year being the FIRST time it has been challenged directly at its basic meaning.

I would suggest being very careful when arguing which of your rights are outdated.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they "strongly favored" or "somewhat favored" renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf

With all due respect...who cares? Your rights to own firearms are not a matter do be decided by poll or votes. The vast majority of Americans would also want warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches of criminals, pornography banned, etc. The bill of rights protects that which is NOT popular, not that which is popular. And as we know, the 2nd amendment is settled law. It protects the individual right to own firearms.

Only if you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute - that no regulation or restrictions on what kind of arms an individual has a right to bear. If you take 2nd Amendment in a literal interpretation, then a citizen should have the right to carry a nuclear bomb in a briefcase if they so choose.

It's more than a little interesting that you believe The second Amendment was written in a "different time" so therefor we should revisit it according to todays standards of tech?

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

I believe that ANY restrictions on our right to own firearms is unconstitutional, yes. It is fairly clearly stated and has been determined by the highest court to be so. Unless there is some other meaning to "Shall not be infringed". The existing (remainging) laws will be struck down a little at a time. It is appalling that in the face of the Heller decision, cities like Chicago continue to deny rights to its citizens, but this too shall pass.

I live the the state of Vermont. The state all the gunowners wish they lived in. "But wait..." you say "Vermont is a liberal state, they must have strict gun laws" Vermont is a libertarian state. We believe in freedom of choice...for everything. A woman can choose to have an abortion. She can also choose to carry a concealed handgun to protect the children she doesn't abort and choose which school to send her children, and her tax money too. And doesn't need a permit for any of it! What? In the land of Howard Dean? The home of admitted Socialist Bernie Sanders? Here, each spring the high schools put on something akin to "job fairs" in all the junior high schools and competitively promote themselves to parents and students. Lousy schools get no students and no money. I can choose to wear clothes or not. There isn't a single law addressing what people wear, or what they don't wear. Being naked is legal in Vermont. And I cannot find a strip club anywhere in the state! Even though there isn't a single restriction or "pole tax" or "pastey law" to be found.

Yep, any person over age 18 can carry a loaded, concealed handgun without a permit or license. "That's CRAZY!" Why? Vermont has a nearly invisible crime rate. It wavers back and forth as the countries lowest, sometimes trading places with North Dakota. It is perfectly legal to go grocery shopping wearing nothing but your handgun! (though it is hard to conceal that way, no problem, the gun doesn't have to be concealed, there are no laws about that) I do not even have locks on my doors. Mind you I didn't say "I don't lock my doors" I said "I do not HAVE locks on my doors" It is a "passage" set, the same kind of doorknob on closet doors. Why on earth would I lock the doors?

Now we in Vermont have a hard time understanding why the people of NY or CA or Washington DC cannot seem to be trusted with the same rights by certain people. Is there something lacking in their mental capability? Are people in other states with less freedom someone missing a functional part of their mind? I mean, yeah, we carry guns in Vermont. In our cars, purses, pockets, we kinda stash them around in convienient places, behind the kitchen door, etc. Yeah, the kids know they are there. But we don't shoot each other with them, and the kids know they are not toys. And somehow we managed to have a really peaceful, quiet virtually crime free society.

So if you want to know what exactly I support, it is that which we have here. There are, for all intents and purposes, no gun laws in Vermont. I mean you could print them on a business card in 12 point type. It says a felon cannot have a gun (redundant, covered by federal law) and you cannot go about armed with an intent to harm a fellow man. There is a couple other regarding defacing serial numbers and such. Mostly redundat repeats of federal law. That about covers it.

So, which restriction on our rights do you think would reduce crime in Vermont?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they "strongly favored" or "somewhat favored" renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf

With all due respect...who cares? Your rights to own firearms are not a matter do be decided by poll or votes. The vast majority of Americans would also want warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches of criminals, pornography banned, etc. The bill of rights protects that which is NOT popular, not that which is popular. And as we know, the 2nd amendment is settled law. It protects the individual right to own firearms.

Only if you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute - that no regulation or restrictions on what kind of arms an individual has a right to bear. If you take 2nd Amendment in a literal interpretation, then a citizen should have the right to carry a nuclear bomb in a briefcase if they so choose.

It's more than a little interesting that you believe The second Amendment was written in a "different time" so therefor we should revisit it according to todays standards of tech?

I wonder if you accept this same premise on the citizenship granted to anyone born here?

Certainly our Forefathers never imagined the rapid manor in which a child laden woman can arrive and and even encouragement of free medical care offered to

foreign nationals outside our borders.

Think we should modify that clause too FancyPants?

Poor argument actually. The clause determining the citizenship of Americans is part of the consitution and can be changed by amendment. There is no provision for amending the rights deliniated in the Bill of Rights. It should be noted that the constitution, written in 1781 was not ratified, was rejected actually, until the Bill of Rights was added and was ratified 8 years later. The people of our country chose to be without a constitution for 13 years rather than risk the rights we all knew to have.

The core of the argument is that "rights" are not granted by the constitution, they are inherent to free men (and women). The constitution and government do not grant them, the constitution and government cannot take them away. Opinion polls do not grant them. Temporary residents of the White House do not grant them. Being a citizen by birth is a privilege, not a right.

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they "strongly favored" or "somewhat favored" renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf

With all due respect...who cares? Your rights to own firearms are not a matter do be decided by poll or votes. The vast majority of Americans would also want warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches of criminals, pornography banned, etc. The bill of rights protects that which is NOT popular, not that which is popular. And as we know, the 2nd amendment is settled law. It protects the individual right to own firearms.

Only if you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute - that no regulation or restrictions on what kind of arms an individual has a right to bear. If you take 2nd Amendment in a literal interpretation, then a citizen should have the right to carry a nuclear bomb in a briefcase if they so choose.

It's more than a little interesting that you believe The second Amendment was written in a "different time" so therefor we should revisit it according to todays standards of tech?

I wonder if you accept this same premise on the citizenship granted to anyone born here?

Certainly our Forefathers never imagined the rapid manor in which a child laden woman can arrive and and even encouragement of free medical care offered to

foreign nationals outside our borders.

Think we should modify that clause too FancyPants?

Poor argument actually. The clause determining the citizenship of Americans is part of the consitution and can be changed by amendment. There is no provision for amending the rights deliniated in the Bill of Rights. It should be noted that the constitution, written in 1781 was not ratified, was rejected actually, until the Bill of Rights was added and was ratified 8 years later. The people of our country chose to be without a constitution for 13 years rather than risk the rights we all knew to have.

The core of the argument is that "rights" are not granted by the constitution, they are inherent to free men (and women). The constitution and government do not grant them, the constitution and government cannot take them away. Opinion polls do not grant them. Temporary residents of the White House do not grant them. Being a citizen by birth is a privilege, not a right.

[britty 1]

The 2nd Amendment is a means to defend against a tyrannical government.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they "strongly favored" or "somewhat favored" renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf

With all due respect...who cares? Your rights to own firearms are not a matter do be decided by poll or votes. The vast majority of Americans would also want warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches of criminals, pornography banned, etc. The bill of rights protects that which is NOT popular, not that which is popular. And as we know, the 2nd amendment is settled law. It protects the individual right to own firearms.

Only if you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute - that no regulation or restrictions on what kind of arms an individual has a right to bear. If you take 2nd Amendment in a literal interpretation, then a citizen should have the right to carry a nuclear bomb in a briefcase if they so choose.

It's more than a little interesting that you believe The second Amendment was written in a "different time" so therefor we should revisit it according to todays standards of tech?

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

And as usual we drift from the topic when faced with facts. The topic was the never-existant "assault weapons ban". Having proven that to be the useless showmanship it was, we go to .....nuclear weapons? Seriously? That is a "fall back" argument? What is next? MRAP personnel carriers? I believe I am not putting forth ridiculous arguments, I would hope someone who disagrees with me about their rights would do the same. This is just no fun. Can someone who disagrees stick to the subject? Can someone offer a challenging reason to surrender their rights?

Yes, I believe any restriction of firearms rights is a violation of the constitution. Proud to say it. And what? I do not give an inch in my support of your rights.

Machine guns? Yes, you and all law abiding people should be allowed to own them if they choose. In most states they are legal when registered as required by the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934. That too will pass. Go to Knob Creek Gun Range in Suburban Louisville Ky the 2nd Sunday of April or October and you will see hundreds and hundreds of law abiding citizens from all over the USA having the time of their lives shooting machine guns, I mean they've got quad 50's and helicopter gunship mini-guns ripping out 6000 rounds per minute! It is fairly awesome (and noisey). No one gets hurt, no one gets assaulted. (and no crimes are committed, imagine that!) The guns are not used for crime (like when was the last time a registered machine gun was used in a crime?) It gets pricey to shoot. At $1 per round (that's a single cartridge for those who don't know) and some 1800 rounds per minute, a quad 50 is not for the average Redneck. Especially if you're going to be shooting it for three days straight.

My pockets are not deep enough for that game, but it is is fun to watch and you can rent a machine gun to get a taste of it, if you like. What? OMG, machine gun rentals!!! Yes, I support that also. Why should us poorer Americans be denied the right to rip off a magazine full from a BAR?

Hey, thats in two weeks! Hwy 31w, south of Louisville, you can't miss it. Drive south until you hear the gunfire, park as close as you can, but you will have to walk a mile or so, it is about as close as you can get to park, or take one of the convenient shuttle busses from Louisville or Radcliff.

Next?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The 2nd Amendment is a means to defend against a tyrannical government.

Exactly. But I may add, a tyrannical domestic government, our OWN government. I will not entertain arguments that we, armed citizens, could not defend against foreign invasion. It isn't the purpose of owning firearms. Though we could mount one hell of an insurgency. The purpose of firearms ownership is the defense of one's self and the free state of affairs from predators and oppressive government.

It is the right that insures all other rights. It is the right, in fact, that insures one's arguments (no matter how silly and off-topic) to surrender their rights. Ironic, eh? There is no need to sugar coat it. The second amendment was provided to insure the government never infringed on our existing right as free men to stage a forcible, an effective, armed revolution if required by the actions of an oppressive government. If free men do not have that ability, they are not free men. They are subjects.

It is NOT about hunting, nuclear weapons, cosmetics, opinion polls, or the price of rice in China. It is an inherent right of free men to possess the ability to defend the other inherit rights of free men (and women, can't forget the women, even though at one time popular opinion polls did not support equal rights for women) Can you imagine such an opinion poll now? Can you imagine someone coming to this forum and even suggesting we should have an opinion poll about the rights of women? Minorities? Religious beliefs? It is preposterous. Yet some people would argue that an opinion poll about another of their rights is somehow less than ridiculous?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Public safety is the primary concern. The potential lethal power of someone using an assault rifle on a crowd could cause more deaths than a hand grenade.

But Steven, any weapon could be used for an assault or a crime. The VT shooter showed just how devastating and assaultive 2 pistols could be.

Only those who obey the law to begin with will obey any new law. Therefore, the law is generally only applicable to those who follow it. So the question begs; who is really benefitting from this legislation?

A ban on manufacturing will make it more difficult for someone to obtain them. From what I understand, because of the current laws against, or for strict ownership of fully automatic weapons, the weapons manufacturers came up with legal semi-auto versions. Limiting the number of rounds is a significant part of the ban proposal.

Look, nobody is going to advocate that we allow citizens to build their own nuclear bombs because of not only potential threat to others, but the chance that the bomb could get into the wrong hands. Where do we draw the line of legality over protecting citizens from such potential dangers? I look at it as - what is the purpose of owning such firearms and what is the potential harm they could do to others in the wrong hands.

I don't necessarily think a ban will make them more difficult to obtain. The difficulty would be absorber by the supplier and transfered to the customer via higher price.

I think this issue is more than just the AWB. It is one small erosion of the right to gun ownership. You've said it yourself, that it follows the same logic as a previous ban. Therefore there will only be more restrictions in the years to come, and I just think it's not the best path to take.

I don't know why people own semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps hunting, sport shooting. I honestly don't know, as I don't own one. My wife banned me from purchasing one. She's the warden around here.

I don't want you to think that I'm for all out violence and total armament; because I'm not. I just think that banning something, while noble in theory, isn't the best way to achieve a desired reduction of something. That's mainly because I don't see centralized coercion or force as a catalyst for change.

The thing is, Matt, the gun lobby always uses that argument - that any regulation is part of some conspiracy to take away all guns...it's a straw man. I use the extreme example of someone building or possessing a nuclear bomb. There are certain weapons that we generally accept should be restricted or outlawed, based on the safety of our citizens. So I understand arguing over which weapons should be banned, as to whether such a ban is over-reaching vs. our individual rights. I have yet to see anyone advocating the right to own a nuclear bomb based on the Second Amendment. So what I see missing is any middle ground coming from the gun lobby on gun regulation. Meanwhile, I haven't seen any convincing argument as to ordinary citizens need a weapon with 30 round clips.

I don't but then I am not the gun lobby. Would a law to restrict our use of the internet be a conspiracy do ban newspapers? Maybe, maybe not. But who cares? It would be a violation of the first amendment and that is good enough for me to oppose it.

Gun laws are unconstittuional on their face, no need to investigate conspiracies.

I will not advocate the right to own nuclear bombs based on the second amendment, the second amendment protects your right to defend yourself from an over-reaching voernemtn, a purpose for which assault rifles are ideal and nuclear bombs are useless.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But Steven, any weapon could be used for an assault or a crime. The VT shooter showed just how devastating and assaultive 2 pistols could be.

the VT shootings show how bad things can get when students hide under desks, instead of taking their destiny into their own hands. those children were raised in a "call 911" culture, and paid the price for believing the lie that police will protect you when things go south.

This surely wins the award for scumbag post of the day.

I don't know about you but a school isn't a war zone. It isn't a place where people reasonably expect to have to fight for their lives. But I suppose to any have a go rambo wannabe fear and confusion when faced with an unknown and terrifying situation is somehow reprehensible cowardice.

The more you talk the less you sound like an ordinary person as much as the sort of person who would carry out such an act.

Why should any person in a civilized society prepare for "less than" civil engagements in their daily life?

Dude you are not in your sheltered British life any more.

In fact that typical outlook of yours is why the British Empire is gone and the country its self is soon gone as well.

Deal

People go about their daily business in the UK, just as they do here - there's nothing "sheltered" about it.

The fact remains - that I've lived in several countries (besides this one), and at no point have I felt the need to procure a weapon for home defence.

Your implication seems to be that everyone needs to buy into rampant paranoia. That might cut it for you - it doesn't for me (or indeed for your countrymen who want nothing to do with firearms).

Perhaps you need to take a few deep breaths and get a grip.

The reason you don't "need" a gun here is because you can have one. For example, here in VT anyone can carry a gun concealed. My gun, which I carry concealed 3 days a week (you guess which 3) protects everyone else because no one knows for sure (well, maybe my hairdresser) That you do not excerise your right and do not feel compelled to because others do, does not give you (or a majority in the latest opinion poll) to make that decision for the rest of us. This is why every state that has implemented concealed carry (all but TWO have some form of concealed carry and 38 allow it for any law abiding citizen, though only Alaska and Vermont are truly free states not requiring unconstituional permission from the government) Every state has had a reduction in crime after allowing free people to go about armed. Fyrther, every county in every sate that has allowed it has experienced the same. It isn't even an argument anymore, way too much evidence for any argument. Firearms in the hands (and purses) of law abiding citizens reduce crime wherever it is tried. My countrymen that do not support various of their own rights...are wrong. But such is also their right! Wonderful country isn't it?

There is no paranoia about it. I am not in the least bit paranoid when going about armed. Paranoid of what? It really doesn't matter if someone is out to get me, I can handle it. I can also hanlde it if someone is out to get YOU. No thanks required. Enjoy the pleasure of being able to choose to be able to defend yourself or relying on someone else with a gun to do it. (um, if you mention police, they have guns also, that is why you call them) When ever there is a crime committed by a person with a gun, we want and need and call for what...another gun! One in the hands of a "good guy" Seems like, and history has proven it, that the more good guys with guns, the less crime. Now isn't that a shock?

And hey, where did everyone get off to? We haven't even begun to argue nuclear powered aircraft carriers, can't someone suggest I want one of those in my briefcase?

[britty 1]

Gary/Alla - Please refrain from posting any further comments which are informed, educated, and accurate. It prevents people from responding which is why this thread has suddenly gone quiet

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hey...where is evryone? Philip Roth tried to croak out a reply and disappreared. C'mon, come out and play!

Meanwhile, knowing that some people cannot be convinced to sherish their rights, I will continue speaking to those in the middle. It isn't a popualrity thing as that isn't important.

Now for those undecided's. The AR15 or Colt Sporter, as Diane Feinstein feels safe calling it, is a remarkable rifle really. I was raised on dinosaurs made of walnut and forged steel, the M1 and M14/M1A. When I rode to school with those rilfes (on the bus) back in the early and mid 70s in order to participate in the school's rifle team matches, I looked askance at the relatively new black rifle. And I didn't have much choice, being influenced not only by my WW2 veteran father but by the school's choice of rifle to issue us for the team. It was a public school, and like so many others didn't have money to buy really fancy match rifles, we made do with rack grade M1s and M-14s (converted back to semi-auto) as given to the school by the federal government's Civilian Marksmanship Program. But we were secure in our thoughts that the tiny bullet speeding out of the AR15 could never match the 3 times heavier bullets we heaved forth from the M1 and M14. Especially at 600 yard targets. Are you serious?

But then in the mid-80s the government paid for the overhaul of the AR15 to the A@ model and things changed forever. About the late 80s a few started showing up on the firing line and we all laughed and made "mouse gun jokes" and beat the pants off the dumb@asses using them. Then they got smart and figured out how to fix that godawful trigger and float the barrel and soon they were laughing at US! I hate to say it but the little black rilfe can shoot rings around the old M1 and M14, and with a lot less expensive custom work. Heck, at that time I had $600 just in the "front end work" of my NM M1 at the time I could buy a whole AR15 for that! Not only that, but it has completely taken over the match rifle course of fire, not just the Service Rifle category. WOW! Something unheard of or even unimagined in the "old days". You never did see an M1 or M14 being used in the match rifle course, it was always the bolt guns, until the AR15A2 came along.

When congress did its showboating in 1994 and outlawed bayonet lugs, it made no difference, the rifle gained even more in popularity. The bayonet lug never did anything anyway. We didn't use bayonets in matches and they have been known to disturb the harmonic vibrations of the barrel, making the rilfe less accurate and therefore less "deadly". I mean what's the point of free floating the barrel only to hang a bayonet on it? Soon everyone was making them. Not a bad thing. They are remarkably adaptable to a variety of after market options, the likes of which has never seen been from any other model of rifle. I wonder if all those manufacturers are selling so many rifles amd so many accesories to the majority of the people that don't want them? Oh well, silly question.

Really, great rifles. I think I will keep mine (I have two actually, a match rifle and a service rifle, it isn't important if you do not know the difference)

Come out, come out wherever you are!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary/Alla - Please refrain from posting any further comments which are informed, educated, and accurate. It prevents people from responding which is why this thread has suddenly gone quiet

OHHHHHHHHHHH, thats where they went! I wondered about why they haven't been playing with me. Dammit.

Oh well, I will continue to speak unopposed then...I am used to it.

Now about the shorter versions of the AR15, fine if that's what you like. For the service rifle course I am restricted to, you guessed it, the "service rifle" but for the match rifle course I have gone whole hog with a full blown "space rifle" with a Colt A3 flattop receiver as a base, adjustable stock, micro adjustable macth rear and globe front on pedestal mount, 26" Douglas air-gauged, heavy bull stainless barrel. I used to have the added "bloop tube" but never found it did my scores any good. I mean Diane Feinstien would FLIP!!!!!!! The damn thing LOOKS fast standing still!!! I use exclusively the Sierra 80 gr. match bullet for single loading for slow fire and the 69 hornady BTHP match for rapid firs stages. I buy them both for handloading in 5000 round cases and shoot about 10-12 thousand rounds through the rifles in a year. Who would ever have though I would change bullet types DURING the same match? Can you believe it? Unheard of with the M1 and M14. But the AR15 platform is so remarkably reliable and repeatable it is an easy task to change completely and some competitiors use a different bullet and loading for each stage. I'm not THAT crazy!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

I believe that ANY restrictions on our right to own firearms is unconstitutional, yes. It is fairly clearly stated and has been determined by the highest court to be so. Unless there is some other meaning to "Shall not be infringed". The existing (remainging) laws will be struck down a little at a time. It is appalling that in the face of the Heller decision, cities like Chicago continue to deny rights to its citizens, but this too shall pass.

Gary, you seem to want it both ways. On one hand, you are saying essentially, that our Second Amendment is absolute (a strict, literal interpretation), but then use a contextual interpretation to define what a person can or can't own for a weapon. But for the sake of your argument - that the Supreme Court has made your assertion (absolute) clear...that is not accurate, even up to the most recent decision - reasonable regulations are acceptable. That is the crux of it all, however, if you are taking the stance that the Second Amendment is absolute, then you are rejecting the plausibility of reasonable regulations, even though you, yourself have some kind of definition of just what kind of arms a person can or can't bear (no nuclear arms even if it fits in a briefcase).

Now let's look at the current laws that are on the books regulating guns. According to you, these would all be in violation of the Second Amendment. Why then, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled such regulations as unconstitutional? I believe the answer to that is twofold. For one, the states have the right to regulate guns and two, because the gun lobby doesn't want the Supreme Court to make any decision in challenging current gun control laws in our 50 states. District of Columbia was unique in that it is under federal jurisdiction, so their ruling for D.C. was limited.