ar-15 train range training assault rifle
Shutterstock
Previous Post
Next Post

Last Wednesday, The Washington Post published an editorial entitled, “No one needs an AR-15 — or any gun tailor-made for mass shootings.” That piece followed an earlier series of articles about the AR-15 under the heading, “AMERICAN ICON: The gun that divides a nation.” Both efforts were meant to echo and amplify Joe Biden’s call to ban semiautomatic long guns and “large capacity” magazines. The articles were, however, ironically self-refuting and established beyond any doubt that AR-15s are in fact shielded by the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, the logic of the authors’ arguments (such as it was), had no limiting principles and would inevitably lead to calls for banning all guns.

Two of the main themes to emerge from the Post’s reporting and editorializing were the authors’ ignorance on the subject matter and the prolific, paradigmatic, and overwhelmingly popular nature of the AR-15 in America. Had any of the numerous writers on these efforts known what they were talking about, they would have realized they were working against their goal of banning AR-15s with the content of their stories.

That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the Second Amendment protects firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes (particularly self-defense), even if those firearms are potentially dangerous and misused by criminals for illegitimate purposes as well. And it’s also because the more elites act on or even mention banning AR-15s, the more ordinary Americans embrace the gun as a symbol of freedom.

rifles AR-15 assault weapon AR pattern
Shutterstock

In fact, the points the Post made on the AR-15’s popularity were so germane to the constitutional status of the weapon that they will likely end up in legal briefs challenging attempts to ban that category of guns.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, for example, the high court considered whether Washington, D.C. could ban handguns, the type of firearm most often misused to commit violent crime. The court’s answer was a resounding “no.”

“It is no answer to say,” the court wrote, “that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed.” The majority opinion continued:

It is enough to note … that the American people have considered the handgun the quintessential self-defense weapon. … Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

In so ruling, the court explicitly recognized that criminals also use handguns for their own illicit purposes, but nevertheless held the adoption of handguns by the law-abiding population was the decisive factor.

“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution,” the majority opinion stated. It also noted the District had other constitutional means for addressing that problem of violent crime. “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” the court emphasized. “These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

The follow-up to Heller in the Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago, reinforced the principle that it was the handgun’s popularity for self-defense that secured its constitutional protection. The Second Amendment “applies to handguns because they are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one’s home and family,“ the court wrote.

Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Justice Clarence Thomas, who was in the majority of both cases, would in 2015 dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case that concerned a municipal ban on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic long guns. Joining his opinion was the author of Heller himself, Justice Antonin Scalia. The dissent explained why such a ban is unconstitutional:

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Thomas in 2022 then wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That opinion reasserted the “common use” test for determining which firearms are protected by the Second Amendment. It also established an explicit standard of review for Second Amendment cases, holding that a gun control law must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” to survive such a challenge.

Now, even as The Washington Post insists the AR-15 must be banned, its own reporting documents why the Second Amendment does not permit this. It also shows that the American people categorically reject the paper’s assertion that “[n]o one needs an AR-15”.

AR-15-style rifles are on display at Burbank Ammo & Guns in Burbank, Calif. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

When it comes to “common use,” the paper’s own investigation revealed that “roughly 16 million people” own some “20 million” AR-15s” in the United States. Or, as the authors noted even more dramatically, “1 in 20 U.S. adults owns at least one AR-15.”

Again and again, the Post’s writers went out of their way to underscore the immense popularity of the AR-15. It was described as “iconic,” “revered, and “truly mainstream.” It was said to hold a “dominant place in the United States’ marketplace” and to be an “off-the-shelf best-seller.” One story even noted the gun has penetrated so deeply into the culture that it’s used to sell other products (like coffee); youth sports teams raffle off the guns to raise money; and businesses give them away as premiums, even as banks once gave away toasters.

Moreover, the authors admitted, the AR-15 only gets more popular with every high-profile attempt to ban it. Even the Post’s attempt to condemn the AR-15 could not help but highlight the gun’s virtues, describing it as rugged, highly effective, user friendly, and massively embraced by the gun-owning public.

And if that weren’t enough help on the constitutional question, the Post even commissioned a poll of AR-15 owners for the series, which reinforced the point that “[s]elf-defense was the most popular reason for owning an AR-15.” Thus, the series itself establishes the prerequisites for an airtight constitutional defense of the AR-15: It is massively popular among the law-abiding public, particularly for the paradigmatic constitutional purpose of defensive use.

gun store sales
(AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

On the other hand, the articles could not make a convincing case the gun was disproportionately used in violent crime (it’s not, no matter what kind of crime is being described). One of the pieces even admitted that “handguns are involved in the bulk of U.S. gun homicides — responsible for 90 percent of deaths in cases where details are available, compared to less than 5 percent for rifles [of any sort, including non-semiautomatic], the FBI says.”

Instead, the articles focused on the AR-15’s use in mass shootings, even though such crimes represent only a tiny fraction of firearm related deaths in America (with most such deaths coming from suicide, followed by feuds between crime-involved individuals or gangs).

Even on this point the Posts’ writers strained to incriminate the gun, as here, too, the handgun has been the most commonly used weapon. The worst the Post could say in this regard is that since 2012, 10 of the 17 mass shootings with the highest number of fatalities involved AR-15s. But even so, the Post acknowledged that more than half of those 10 incidents involved other types of firearms as well.

When all was said and done, the Post had very little of substance to argue against the AR-15.

Courtesy Washington Post

The number one item in the Post’s indictment was the appeal and popularity of the gun itself. As anti-gun Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) infamously admitted at a hearing on a bill to ban AR-15s and similar guns, the “problem” with such firearms is that they are “in common use” and banning these popular arms is the “point of the bill.”

Of course, to any person who hates guns, a popular gun must be particularly objectionable. But as already discussed, that logic works in reverse when it comes to the question of whether the Constitution permits a ban on the item, as does lecturing the American people –who have obviously made up their own minds to the contrary– that they don’t “need” such a gun.

The other arguments the Post made against the AR-15 were its military pedigree and the character of the wounds it inflicts. The Post even emphasized the latter point with a tasteless and exploitative article that detailed the wounds of two minors killed in criminal attacks committed with AR-15s.

These points, however, could be made against virtually any firearm.

The idea of distinguishing military versus civilian firearms is largely a construct of anti-gun activism. For most of American history, private and military guns have been one and the same.

The Second Amendment, of course, was the product of an era in which “the people” were expected to be able to muster with their personally owned arms and use them to take on any military force, foreign or domestic, that might threaten American liberty. The guns the Minute Men carried were just as sophisticated in their day as those of the Redcoats. Consequently, the technology of basic shoulder arms and handguns has historically flowed freely back and forth in America between the military and civilian realms.

Since 1934 – with the advent of federal restrictions on “machineguns” and “short barreled” long guns – anti-gun activists have tried to demonize certain guns as more suitable for criminal or military use than for law-abiding citizens. In the case of machine guns, there is at least a bona fide technical distinction, as they alone fire “automatically,” i.e., the firing cycle will continue as long as the trigger is activated and the ammunition supply is maintained.

But AR-15s are NOT machine guns and fire one shot per activation of the trigger, just as with any other repeating firearm.

Make no mistake, if the “military” qualities of AR-15s could be the rationale for banning them, then common handguns, bolt action hunting rifles, and shotguns would be similarly at risk, for all of them have their analogs in military armories. And these analogs are, if anything, even more identical than the semiautomatic AR-15 is to the automatic M16 or M4 used by America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

The Post also made much of military and police themes in the advertising of AR-15s, as if this somehow established that such guns could only appeal to homicidal maniacs. But it’s hardly surprising, much less blameworthy, that people who want a gun to protect themselves and their families from lethal encounters choose designs that have proven themselves under the rigorous uses of soldiers and law enforcement officers.

Criminals, after all, aren’t looking for a fair fight. If a police department chooses a particular gun to protect the public from the local criminal element, it only makes sense the public would consider that gun for the same purpose. Banning such guns would only put the law on the side of violent criminals willing to ignore the rules.

The WaPo stories also emphasized what sort of wounds the AR-15 produces as an argument for banning the guns. What the stories don’t mention, however, is that equal tissue damage, or far worse, can be inflicted by any number of common firearm designs, particularly shotguns and larger-caliber hunting rifles.

AR-15 rifle magazine optic EOTECH
Shutterstock

Ludicrously, the Post described full metal jacket handgun bullets as moving “straight and smooth through human targets,” as if over-penetration and its consequent risk to bystanders is somehow to be preferred to firearm projectiles that expand or fragment and pose a much lower risk of over-penetration. But that assertion itself is wildly oversimplified and highly dependent on the ammunition used and the caliber of the firearms at issue.

The Post’s misleading focus on “lethality” is once again an argument for banning all guns. If lethality could be the basis for banning a common and popular firearm design, then no gun is safe.

But banning guns — particularly the AR-15 — isn’t about problem-solving or crime control, it’s about ideology and the exertion of power. That’s why firearm prohibitionists like those at the Post and the politicians for whom they act as proxies will never stop with just this or that type of “especially dangerous” gun. They will simply be emboldened by the banning of one category to move on to the next.

Unlike Goldilocks and her purloined porridge, gun control advocates will never find a firearm that is “just right” for their tastes.

That’s why the NRA opposes any attempt to ban any firearm used by law-abiding Americans for legitimate purposes. And it’s also likely why the Supreme Court had the wisdom to interpret the Second Amendment with reference to how firearms are used by ordinary Americans, rather than criminals.

As for The Washington Post’s recent efforts, we can at least commend them for recognizing the AR-15 as a true American icon and for reinforcing its status as a quintessential self-defense firearm. That means its prohibition isn’t just unwise and unjustified but is “off the table” from a constitutional standpoint.

 

This article originally appeared at nraila.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post

93 COMMENTS

  1. Ah, once again the left brings up the bill of needs. Can’t remember what section of the constitution that’s in

      • I’d be all for “reparations” if that would be the end of it. But that wouldn’t be the end of it. It would only be the beginning. It will never be enough until we’re all kneeling down and worshiping the Progressives.

        • Well when you take the time to visit History you’ll see the party liable for Monitary Reparations is the democRat Party.

          If you fail to know History then you assume everyone owes like the democRat Party figures most people will do. Now if those with the megaphones on radio and TV pointed out who owes what the democRat Party trying to lay their race based atrocities on everyone’s doorsteps would stfu and crawl back under the rock from which it came.

        • and a tranny murderer is now a “victim”….their minds work in mysterious ways……

        • There is NO WAY on God’s Good Earth, that I would be for “reparations” of any kind. We have don’t nothing that we should have to pay “reparations” for.

        • Lessee here, 81 million ballots for FJB times 5 million dollars each equals… oh crap I suck at math.

    • Check out the opinion piece, “No one needs a dead tree newspaper publication bought by Jeff Bezos to cover up an affair scandal.”

      “AMERICAN ICON: THE SATIRICAL NEWSPAPER THAT IDENTIFIES AS FACTS.”

      “The Wapo, best known for utilizing high capacity trees to print iconic, baseless opinions while hiding behind the 1st amendment continues to spew high levels of carbon emissions in the name of ‘truth.’ The Wapo has a current subscriber level of just 267 (213 members of Congress, 51 senators, Dr. Jill Biden M.D. not Ph.D., Kamala Harris [who identifies with the pronouns V & P], and Assistant Secretary for Health: Admiral Rachel Leland Levine). One must ask the question since it isn’t really in ‘common use’ as to whether the founders were really intending high capacity printing presses the ability to spew out satire that identifies as facts? ‘We want universal background checks and universal registration’ said an anonymous source at the IPP (Bureau of Ink Print Paper). ‘If Congress can’t do it, we will just make a rule change,’ which would potentially turn over 250 people who identify as Americans into felons overnight.”

      It was a really interesting editorial and probably worth a quick read. 🤔😉

  2. Question: If the Feds pass a law requiring you to turn in 8 of your ten guns, how many will you have leff?

    Answer: 10.

  3. Can’t believe there’s any more of that equine carcass left to beat. Should be all pulp and hair by now.

    • Yeah, when the 1st Amendment was passed, there was no such thing as an “assault keyboard” (a term I just made up) that can post articles to millions of homes within a matter of seconds. The Founding Fathers could have never anticipated the internet or news outlets like WaPo and therefore the 1st Amendment doesn’t and shouldn’t apply to them

  4. I’ll never understand this “needs” argument. they apply it to nothing else on earth. no one needs an SUV. no one needs a hair weave. no one needs a 40oz malt liquor. no one needs an iphone 14. on and on but the “needs” argument only applies to guns strangely enough

    • Well, they do apply it to eating meat, traveling, air conditioning, heating, homes larger than 600 square feet, a yard, your own vehicle, etc…

      Unless your net worth exceeds seven figures. Then you definitely need all that stuff. The rest of us don’t.

    • Because nobody needs a gas stove, or a car, or air conditioning, or a yard, or meds, or a media that may present a different viewpoint than that prescribed by our omniscient government.

    • to urban dwellers you only acquire a gun if you “need” it…and then only reluctantly…and that usually only applies to a pistol…this gun seems way over the top to them…….

      • Frank:
        This particular urban dweller acquires a gun, if he WANTS it, ergo the anthesis reluctance. So… THERE!

  5. The news media and anti-gun politicians have been the main driving force driving the market for the AR-15. Once Americans bought an AR to spite the anti’s they discovered all the positive features it brings to the table. Gun Makers ads have rarely influenced me to buy a particular arm. But many hysterical calls for gun bans have sent me to the gun shop to load up on guns and accessories. Others must have followed the same path.

    • telling you you can’t have it just makes you want it all the more…simple human nature…that always escapes the anti-gun crowd….

    • The funny thing, sort of, is that while an AR is an interesting firearm and a notable design and it serves a number of purposes reasonably well, it is not necessarily the pinnacle of firearms technology. It strikes me as a bit bizarre that the anti-gun types have chosen, as their white whale, a more than half century old, mid powered, mid grade, utility rifle. I know it is common, I know it is popular, I know it can be configured in a variety of ways, I have some and they serve me well but, it is not such a monumental gun that if it were to disappear, the world would fundamentally change – at least, not very much. Why the antis are fixated on that particular firearm, I just don’t know.

      They really are their own worst enemy. Their fixation on ARs has, in large part, driven the platform’s massive popularity. The same was true thirty years ago – I bought my first AR because of the impending Clinton AW ban in the nineties. Had the government not announced that they were going to ban the things, I might not have bothered. I didn’t “need” an AR, I had no immediate use for one (other than plinking) and I had other things that I could have spent my firearms dollar on but, since it appeared that I might not be able to later, I bought an AR then. I know a boatload of other people did the same and continue to do the same every time Big Gov starts saying their going to ban something.

      The antis like to think they are scoring points when they point out that an AR was used in a crime, particularly a mass shooting. They go on to claim that the gun is particularly bad because of that but, this is a stupid assertion – the gun did not commit the crime. Yes, many recent high profile crimes have involved ARs but, similarly, many recent traffic accidents have involved F150s. Being the most popular item of a given type makes it more likely that said item is present when the types of things that involve that type of item occur. Also, more alligator attacks occur in Florida than in Wisconsin.

      • MyName:
        “Also, more alligator attacks occur in Florida than in Wisconsin.”
        Gee, I noticed that too. I wonder why. (Snicker.)

  6. What’s truly ‘Needs’ to happen is the elimination of these Pols and their Acolytes from the government and their relevance in society as a whole.

  7. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. The Leftist Radical Anti-Gun Mob does not understand that an inanimate object is incapable of any actions, violent or otherwise. An AR-15 style rifle or an AK-47 is nothing more than a semiautomatic rifle when configured in the civilian model. In fact you cannot buy a “military rifle”, but the Leftist control mob refuses to admit this very pertinent fact. No military in the world issues an AR-15 or a civilianized AK-47 (OR 74) to its armed forces. NONE, NOT ANY!
    The Leftists control mob refuses to deal with the REAL PROBLEM. Criminals and mentally ill folks. Why? Because they fear and armed populace that can defend itself. If an armed populace can defend itself, the Leftists cannot exert control over the people. Simple as that.

      • the only “tranny” I’m a gonna be thinkin’ about is the one that sits between the engiine and the driveline in my old van. I could care less about any other.

      • Since were all about freedom of identity, I’ll just declare that all of my semi-auto rifles identify as single shot target rifles and all of my semi-auto pistols became revolvers
        yesterday, so please respect their privacy.

  8. The Washington Post writes an editorial basing its arguments on… other WP articles. Solid journalism there.

  9. The Post’s misleading focus on “lethality” is once again an argument for banning all guns.
    If a gun isn’t lethal, why would I want it? I don’t need a gun that tickles the target with marshmallows.

  10. Not too long ago there was an article posted about cleaning the AR-15. And here comes the AR-15 experts to say they wouldn’t own one blah, blah, blah. Which is to say they do not have a clue about how to make the platform run.
    Long story short…democRats are not the only nitwits when it comes fueling Gun Control. There are Gun owning azzhats who are almost just as bad. Instead of buying or assembling an AR-15 out of spite they bad mouth something they do not know how to correct issues. Anyone who owns an AR-15 that is correct does not sell it because they cannot find a reason to sell it which is a reason to acquire another.

    Nothing WaPoop likes more than another lame reason to wave around for not owning an AR-15 and some reasons come from gun owners passing gas.

    • Debbie:
      Is it okay with you if I just DON’T LIKE the AR15. My son has one, and I have fired it once or twice myself. I think that it is damn uncomfortable to shoot, and I much prefer my M1 Carbine and (to a lesser extent) my Mini 14.

  11. “No one needs an AR-15 — or any gun tailor-made for mass shootings.”

    That was a widely-held sentiment right up until the very moment that Russian military forces invaded Ukraine–a widely held sentiment with the Ukrainian populace of course.

    Bringing this novel concept back to the United States, no one needs an AR-15–until they do. The really sneaky aspect to all of this is that we most likely won’t know ahead of time when we will need one. And, as the people of Ukraine learned the hard way, by the time you realize that you need a firearm for self-defense or even the common defense, it may no longer be possible (or at least practical) to acquire one.

    Thus we apply the tried-and-true pearl of wisdom, “Better to have and not need than to need and not have.”

    • perfect gun to stash in the back of the closet with a big box of ammo…for many that’s where it will remain…perhaps forever…but there’s something comforting in just knowing it’s there…

      • frank speak,

        Exactly. And it should have a somber plaque next to it which reads, “Use in case of dire emergency.”

        It is the same as having a fire extinguisher. I doubt that more than one in every 100,000 people will ever have a dire use case for a fire extinguisher. If such a use case ever arises, though, the person who has a fire extinguisher will be VERY happy that he/she has it.

  12. Leftoids: no one needs an AR-15!

    Normal American’s: Well no one needs a whiny little bitch like you, yet here you are.

  13. Unfortunatetly the folks who say we Americans do not need to own an AR will never understand the need unless they are behind concertina wire, in re-education camps, learning to speak Russian or Chinese.

    • Unfortunately Liberal and Progressive Democrats will willingly go. Turning their backs on the Freedoms and Liberties, so many Patriots fought and died for. As did the Tory’s during the Revolutionary War.

    • No need to learn russian or chinese in the BarbWire Hotel. They’ll roast you long before you wiill ever really NEED to speak to them.

      • Tionico,

        When you typed the word “roast”, if you meant “separated from your internal organs for transplants to worthy Russian or Chinese subjects”, then yes you are correct. Otherwise, learning to speak Russian or Chinese will ever-so-slightly reduce your pain and suffering over the course of the several months while they literally work you to death.

  14. I am not a Constitutional scholar. I just play one on TV. But I am pretty sure the 2A wasn’t written with home defense in mind, only if it is against a tyrannical government. That is EXACTLY why the 2A was written in. To protect the people from a party, like the insane democraps…

    • History teaches us that there’s no convenient bright line between “home defense” and “defense against tyrannical government”. Corrupt and tyrannical governments very often use “unofficial” agents (i.e. partisan street goons, gangs, mobs, etc) to do their dirty work. The KKK filled this role during the reconstruction era. Hitler’s brownshirts are another obvious example. Then there was Interahamwe in Rwanda, and various Chavista street gangs in Venezuela. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about Antifa and BLM.

        • “Dave, you have to understand, that some people are not very bright.”

          “Dave, you have to understand, that some people are intentionally not very bright.”

          FIFY

  15. Someone needs to challenge the legality of the NFA and when the political left says that machine guns are not in common use you just need to point them to their own words where they are claiming that an AR-15 is a machine gun.

    • machine guns” are not in common use for ONLY one reason: the’ve been banned/illegal for some sixty years so no one’s been able to BUY them.

      Dummies. Speaking of self-fulfilling prophecy…….

      • Better yet, simply point out that machine guns are in common use in various police departments and the U.S. military.

  16. “No one needs an AR-15 — or any gun tailor-made for mass shootings.”
    That’s exactly what we need you fucking tyrants.

  17. Did that bitch King George III ever fight in battle?
    I need to brush up on my history.

    • Nope. Never could tolerate blood on his hands, unless it was second hand shed blood. He had his minions perform his dirty work.

  18. Watching President Trump on his way to court. The NYPD obviously doesn’t have weight limits for their officers. Freaking pathetic. Wondering how that one black female cop can fit her ass on a toilet. Let the hate begin…

  19. Excellent article.

    One very important point was overlooked.

    The reason the gun-haters don’t care about admitting their plans are blocked by the Second Amendment is that their plans include the REPEAL of the Second Amendment. If not by the difficult means proscribed in the Constitution, then by the courts, as soon as they manage to replace or add enough judges and justices to write rulings that accomplish that same task.

    Never forget that Heller was a razor-thin 5-4 decision for one of the most fundamental tenets of the right: to keep a loaded and operational firearm in one’s OWN HOME for the purpose of self-defense! We were THAT close to losing the Second Amendment for at least a generation.

    At this point we are only 2 or 3 fragile human lives away from being in that exact same spot again. Do not ever doubt that as soon as that margin swings the other way, the other side will attack and overturn Heller, McDonald, and Bruen as fast as they possibly can.

    • Let them. By then there will be three AR pattern rifles for every one of them, AND the skilled hands to drive them.

      But even if they DO manage to ‘repeal” that Second Article of Ammendment, it will still stand. Those fly-specks on sheepskin never GAVE us anything. Nope. they did not and do not. Those words only declare that we HAVE those rights as part of our nturalexistence and that gvernment MUST leave them alone. Anyone who thinks they can be “repealed” simply does NOT understand what those words are. They re ours, much as our breath is ours. And aling with that breath is our RIGHT to protect it.

    • No, TFred,

      Like the Republicans and “Concealed Carry Reciprocity”, the Dims know damn well they can’t repeal the 2A. Now that Justice Thomas actually reminded them what the 2A said, and that they literally CAN’T “ban” a firearm that has literally been in common use for over 50 years, they are basically playing out their pi**sy-ass political Kabuki theater while they stomp their feet and hold their breath.

      I will consider giving up ANY of my firearms when the Leftist/fascists decide to stop being authoritarian, freedom-hating, goose-stepping, Brownshirt fascists. Lemme know when that happens.

      • “they can’t repeal the 2A”

        Did you miss the score for Heller? They very much CAN delete the 2A, and they most certainly WILL do that, as soon as they get 5 gun-haters on the Supreme Court, who WILL overturn Heller, McDonald, and Bruen at their first opportunity. There is NO stare decisis left in play. Dobbs took care of that, and that decision will justify any future decisions to repeal prior 2A cases. They’d probably even consider it “payback,” and laugh.

        In Heller, FOUR sitting justices on the United States Supreme Court said that no citizen has a Constitutionally protected RIGHT to keep an operable firearm in their OWN HOME.

        That would for all practical purposes, entirely eliminate the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

  20. Funny these Pawn Tiff a Cators make so much of the “military use” concet. They prove their iggerunts of all things firearms in so declaring.
    Our war to drive the Brits out, back in the 1770’s and 80’s was fought with fowling piueces, hunting rifles, horse pistols, duelling pistols, turkey guns, deck cannon from merchant ships, etc.
    As rifles and pistols were developed for civilian and work use during the mid-19th century, military gradually took them up and adoped them for soldier use. Sam Colt was contracted to build some large number of his revolvers,, each with specific features better suiting them for army or navy use, then issued to military. The .45/70 Government cartridge was developed for clearing the western plains then coopted for military use.
    Speaking if military weaponis being cooptd for civilian use, the 111903 Sringfield bolt action rifle was developed for army service, acquitte itself well through the Girst and well into the Secind German wars. I have seen dozens of those “bringbacks” in the hands of friends and relatives as a kid. Mre game has been taken in NOrth America by hunters shouldering those rifles than byball other means combined up i=until perhaps the kast twenty years. One if my Dad’s brothers had his, had made a custom hunting stock forit, and I KNIW that was a “military style” rifle because it is the very same ine he carried over several Pacific Islands as HE used it to drive out the Japanese occupiers of those islands.
    the nine by nineteen pistol cartrige was developed early in the last century by the gerans, they called it the “parabellum” (meaning, in latin, “for war”) That round has become the single most popular hndgin calibre ever. In fact it s so popular the insane female who recently murdered six in a Nashvile school used that round in bith her handgun and a carbine style long gun.. The “.308 Winchester” rifle cartridge developed for sporting purposes has been taken up by nearly every military in the Western world, being re-labelled the “7.62 by 51 mm NATO” cartridge.
    My own choice for my carry gun was deveoped in 1926 s a military officer’s sidearm by John Moses Browing. It has been used by nearly every military force in Europe, near Asia, Siuth America, the US, and many nations in Africa. It uses the Prabellum round I mentioned above.
    Miliary weapons developed for war, and civilian weapoins developed for sporting use, have regularly been “coopted” by the “other side” over history.

    Firearms are firearms, They capabilities and characteristics they have been given are universally useful. I can take a standard Ruger 10/.22 semiautomatic rifle (which some states INCLUDE in their expansive definition of “assault rifle” paint it camo green, remove one screw, releasing the entire stock, then replace it with a differentn”looking” stock and have.. for the cost of under $100,and have an item nearly anyine would identify as “an assault rifle”.
    They are all consumed with their “smoke and mirrors” game.

  21. I can never quite decide if the gun-grabbers actually believe that ARs are super deadly super weapons that must be banned or if they are just using them as their first target. If they can get ARs (and all the other, essentially equivalent, arms) banned then, they can jump up and tell the uninformed masses about a new threat: All those deer huntin’ guns they said they weren’t worried about are actually *more* powerful than the awful AR.

    I dunno, are they stupid? Are they crafty? Some combination? I really am not sure. I guess I’ll just continue to say, “No, you cannot have it,” and leave it at that.

  22. no talk of banning the ak
    hmmm
    could it be
    because theyre rarely used in mass shootings
    and could that be
    because theyre just not as good as the ar

  23. National divorce. The Tech company billionaires don’t like the 1st Amendment. And apparently a lot of these other billionaires don’t like the 2nd amendment as well.

    Their private security squads. do not make up for the tens of millions of gun owners in this country. And many of those gun owners have more fire power than their private security has.

  24. “No one needs an AR-15 — or any gun tailor-made for mass shootings.”

    Ironically, the Second Amendment is needs based.

  25. “Need” is inconsequential.
    If it’s in common use, (Caetano) is not Dangerous AND Unusual, (Heller) it can not be banned. The courts may no longer use interest balancing (Bruen) It’s one test too many.

    The gun grabbers are burnt.

  26. ” “Need” is inconsequential.”

    And yet, it is the preamble to “shall not be infringed”.

    Conundrum?

  27. I’m a free American born in this Great country. I’d like to know why anyone has the right to tell Me what I do and do not need.

  28. “No one needs the Washington Post— or any publication tailor-made for spreading progressivism.”

  29. what a crock. 65 million people do NOT own AR’s. MAYBE 15 million do. So stop your lying. Leave that to our enemies.

Comments are closed.