AR-15 stands for assault rifle 15

A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i'm not really interested in semantics. when someone says assault rifle, they get a lecture about "it's not really an assault rifle"
if they say clip they get a lecture, if they say what the fuck ever, they get a lecture about the fucking semantics...but the dead people don't get to get up and live again...so semantics don't fucking matter to me very much, when we ALL know exactly what we mean
Click to expand...
It's not semantics. It's law. You will find out soon enough. For example, a 30 round magazine for an AR platform is not high capacity, but standard capacity.

And so, the poster that was meant for was for informational purposes, however they lean on this issue, as is their right. Because no matter which way they or I may lean on this issue, I genuinely want to know all the relevant information I can and I assume the same of others mostly.

So you see, the fact those cap and ball or flintlock type weapons are not classed firearms, means I may mail order them to my home with no background check, even though I may be a felon. I'm not sure why you would call that semantics, in fact it is the exact opposite.

Because the implication, to me was, that the 2a should only apply to those available at the time, and you now see that it does completely and unfettered and even includes more modern tech like revolvers without cartridges 6 decades later.

As so we just saw 2 weeks ago, that keep arms means at home, and bear arms means lawfully out in public. And that all pending 2a cases are remanded considering this and the only test is the 2a text informed by history, that history presumably will hold as from 2a text to the time of the 14th ammendment.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
Did you know that is not a firearm technically?
Click to expand...
It is a Prohibited weapon in Canada due to it's barrel being under 4 1/4", if the barrel was longer it would be a Restricted weapon. Was it not one of these that killed Lincoln? I just looked it up, it was a .44 caliber. also found this,

" If it is a caplock, and uses loose powder and shot, OR was made prior to 1899, it is classed as an ANTIQUE firearm, and is not subject to the 1968 Gun Control Act."


Maybe not a weapon that you would use to become a mass murderer but I think is still should be considered a firearm. I wonder if visitors to the US can carry one loaded as we are not allowed to go armed?
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
printer said:
It is a Prohibited weapon in Canada due to it's barrel being under 4 1/4", if the barrel was longer it would be a Restricted weapon. Was it not one of these that killed Lincoln? I just looked it up, it was a .44 caliber. also found this,

" If it is a caplock, and uses loose powder and shot, OR was made prior to 1899, it is classed as an ANTIQUE firearm, and is not subject to the 1968 Gun Control Act."


Maybe not a weapon that you would use to become a mass murderer but I think is still should be considered a firearm. I wonder if visitors to the US can carry one loaded as we are not allowed to go armed?
Click to expand...
I didn't know that! About Lincoln and Canadian Law. Did you see that little one I posted? That's available as a cap and ball, 5 shot. Carrying it is up to the States though. I think 25 States you can or could. It's called "Vermont carry".
 
DoubleAtotheRON

DoubleAtotheRON

Well-Known Member
printer said:
It is a Prohibited weapon in Canada due to it's barrel being under 4 1/4", if the barrel was longer it would be a Restricted weapon. Was it not one of these that killed Lincoln? I just looked it up, it was a .44 caliber. also found this,

" If it is a caplock, and uses loose powder and shot, OR was made prior to 1899, it is classed as an ANTIQUE firearm, and is not subject to the 1968 Gun Control Act."


Maybe not a weapon that you would use to become a mass murderer but I think is still should be considered a firearm. I wonder if visitors to the US can carry one loaded as we are not allowed to go armed?
Click to expand...
You can travel around the US on any airline with a weapon. However, it must be checked separately at a dedicated TSA terminal office. They will open the case, inspect for clear, and relock the case. It must be in a lockable case, and no ammo in the case. Ammo must be in original box, and checked in a separate bag. TSA will give you a separate baggage claim ticket .You can then store your locked case weapon in your checked baggage, separate from the ammo...... as long as the State your flying to allows conceal carry, which is pretty much anywhere. I've only been to one airport where they took my weapon out of my luggage (they are red tagged for weapon declaration), and had to got to another office to pick it up. Seattle. ... figures.

That's a cool old Deringer ya got there! If it's all original, that thing is prob worth some $$$
 
Last edited:
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
that means nothing if you're only allowed 5 round clips...
Click to expand...
Right so I don't know how else to say this and I'm really not trying to come off as a dick or argue but just trying to show what is.

So the end means scrutiny part is no longer.

Here dude, let me take some screen shots:

Screenshot_20220710-193647_Samsung Notes.jpg
Screenshot_20220710-192930_Samsung Notes.jpg

So all that remains is the Amendments text as informed by history. The history part being from text to text from the 2nd ammendment to the 14th ammendment.

And so you would be hard pressed to find any round capacity limitations in the text as informed by history during that period.

Essentially you're just left with "dangerous and unusual" and having to meet both not either or.

And so the AR platform is "common" and the magazines are "standard".
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
they missed one definition...
"Niggling terminology asshole"...anyone who uses technicalities to make a facetious point, while people are dying.
Click to expand...
Printer didn't miss it. The bear has been riding me for a while so, no matter what I type is going to be wrong.

The terminology as written is why nothing is ever done. You have to change it or you are just pissing up a rope.

Any excuse will do to lash out though right?
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
Printer didn't miss it. The bear has been riding me for a while so, no matter what I type is going to be wrong.

The terminology as written is why nothing is ever done. You have to change it or you are just pissing up a rope.

Any excuse will do to lash out though right?
Click to expand...
look, it's easy enough to nullify that language with new laws that supersede it...you just have to have the majority to pass it.
most of the democratic party and oddly enough, a couple of republicans, would be happy to pass those laws, but the fucking republicans are fucking all of that up, just like they always do...

and i don't need an excuse to lash out...and if you think that was lashing out, you have never seen me lash before, that was very gentle chiding...very gentle....lashing starts with motherfucker, and ends with cocksucker.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ActionianJacksonian said:
I just checked and your feelings did not change the plain text of the statute:

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
you are trying to argue that “antique firearm” does not equal a firearm.

This is the fail that attends using a legal definition as if it were the dictionary entry. It leads to the defense of obviously ridiculous semantic contortions.
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
look, it's easy enough to nullify that language with new laws that supersede it...you just have to have the majority to pass it.
most of the democratic party and oddly enough, a couple of republicans, would be happy to pass those laws, but the fucking republicans are fucking all of that up, just like they always do...

and i don't need an excuse to lash out...and if you think that was lashing out, you have never seen me lash before, that was very gentle chiding...very gentle....lashing starts with motherfucker, and ends with cocksucker.
Click to expand...
Ok well hopefully you can attack the verbiage after they pass whatever and not just trust they did.

cannabineer said:
you are trying to argue that “antique firearm” does not equal a firearm.

This is the fail that attends using a legal definition as if it were the dictionary entry. It leads to the defense of obviously ridiculous semantic contortions.
Click to expand...
You are flat wrong. I did not attempt to conflate a legal definition with a dictionary one. I clearly used the term "technically" and quotes around the term firearm.

The response was post #342. Printer knew exactly what I was talking about, even pulled up the code, read it and opined on it.

Imo that's a discussion.

I stated that that flintlock is not technically a "firearm" in case someone didn't know, like you obviously did not.

There is no arguing that an "antique firearm" is a "firearm", because it isn't. It's just a fact. So here you go again assigning my intent as if you have a clue.

And it's not semantics because I can order a 6 shot Colt old army to my doorstep right now with no background check even if I'm a felon.

The fail was yours. Demonstrated by your own link you posted to "pwn da libz" or whatever the crap this is you are doing. You obviously didn't read it, so now you've come to tell me what my intentions were to distract from it.

Newsflash: didn't work. Sometimes "my bad" is just easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top