Give me your AR-15

[HST4ME]

All i have is ar-14's they shoot like 2 rounds or something?

 

[Shlbyntro]

"Sure you can have my ar15.... if you can convince my ar10 to let you have it"

 

[was thatguy]

I actually had a few AR7 survival rifles. 22LR

They were cool to modify.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

That statement is from federal law. It uses those terms exactly. If you actually go read the law and the case law to go with it, it is pretty clear. In a nut shell of you sell it to a known prohibited person it's on you. If you have no clue the guy is prohibited you are fine. You are not required to ask, or even have a bill of sale. So if you are selling a gun to some one you don't know, and he has a ms13 tattoo on his face, you deserve to go to jail. You sell to a guy in jeans in a t shirt that had a minor felony 20 years ago that you never knew about. You are golden.

And if this guy with MS13 face tats could pass the FBI instant background check?

Your argument is horseshit. An individual should not be put in a place to determine federal law, period. Its the same argument I have about e-verify. Its on me to sort through all the illegals and only hire legals? The federal government owes me a legal resident workforce to hire from. Its is not my job to enforce US immigration law. One which they cannot even do themselves.

 

[monkeyswrench]

View attachment 797934

For a Socialist this Joto is really capitalizing at $30 a shirt.

First thing I thought..."How many rounds of 5.56 can I buy for 30$?"

 

[regor]

 

[SNiC Jet]

 

[spectra3279]

In all actuality, they cant do it unless they amend the constitution. Its plainly written there. And I dont think they can get the states votes to do it

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[pronstar]

In all actuality, they cant do it unless they amend the constitution. Its plainly written there. And I dont think they can get the states votes to do it

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

True. I hope.

Even Clinton’s “AWB” grandfathered in previously owned guns. It only affect the sale and manufacture of new guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BONER]

In all actuality, they cant do it unless they amend the constitution. Its plainly written there. And I dont think they can get the states votes to do it

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Problem is Politicians that can actually enforce the Constitution, do not. They'd rather sell us out to Iran and let Americans get slaughtered, to line their pockets.

 

[Grandpa mac]

We're essentially in agreement. Hell, I have guns ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE. I'm sitting at my desk, right now and this is under it.

View attachment 797879

I have one in my Raptor, one in my wife's truck. One at my bedside. I keep one in a chair in our theater room. Hell, I probably have guns stashed that I've forgotten about.

I'm one of the good guys when it comes to gun rights. I simply saw something when I did that show that shocked me.

Arizona is in fact pretty safe. And you're probably right, an armed society, is a polite society.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

View attachment 798554

WTF is that have to do with me having weapons all over the place? Ya know its legal here.

 

[Grandpa mac]

WTF is that have to do with me having weapons all over the place? Ya know its legal here.

In reference to your claim that an armed society is a polite society. Water your polite society with a few shots of whiskey or a traffic jam and see how it goes.

 

[monkeyswrench]

In reference to your claim that an armed society is a polite society. Water your polite society with a few shots of whiskey or a traffic jam and see how it goes.

It thins the herd... I have no problem with that, less traffic for the traffic jams, and less drunks.

A gun is a simple tool, the same can be accomplished many other ways. The usual anti-gun people at the voter level have never been in need of a gun, and are anti LEO, yet depend on them for protection. The average anti-gun law maker, would never think of having their personal security detail unarmed. Well then, some of us neither have a security detail, nor a want to depend on others for my family's safety.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

In reference to your claim that an armed society is a polite society. Water your polite society with a few shots of whiskey or a traffic jam and see how it goes.

OK, Wyatt. Whatever you say.

 

[Grandpa mac]

OK, Wyatt. Whatever you say.

It is interesting though, don’t you think? As much as guns were a part of Wild West culture, and yet they still said you couldn’t wear one in Tombstone and many other frontier towns. And nobody crying to SCOTUS about their 2A rights.

 

[Doc]

It is interesting though, don’t you think? As much as guns were a part of Wild West culture, and yet they still said you couldn’t wear one in Tombstone and many other frontier towns. And nobody crying to SCOTUS about their 2A rights.

Yes, very interesting that you would compare a law stating you couldn't carry your weapon to government trying to actually take away your weapon. Big difference there gmac.

 

[monkeyswrench]

It is interesting though, don’t you think? As much as guns were a part of Wild West culture, and yet they still said you couldn’t wear one in Tombstone and many other frontier towns. And nobody crying to SCOTUS about their 2A rights.

Yes, very interesting that you would compare a law stating you couldn't carry your weapon to government trying to actually take away your weapon. Big difference there gmac.

So, the above stated law was signed 6 months before the shootout that made Tombstone famous...

Gun laws didn't even save anyone's lives then...paper doesn't stop violence.

 

[500bbc]

It is interesting though, don’t you think? As much as guns were a part of Wild West culture, and yet they still said you couldn’t wear one in Tombstone and many other frontier towns. And nobody crying to SCOTUS about their 2A rights.

Stupid fucking Turd licker...

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

It is interesting though, don’t you think? As much as guns were a part of Wild West culture, and yet they still said you couldn’t wear one in Tombstone and many other frontier towns. And nobody crying to SCOTUS about their 2A rights.

No, I don’t think it’s interesting. For you to Juxtapose the two, shows you’re either a nit-wit or a troll or both.

Really? Tombstone for fuck sakes.

 

[Carlson-jet]

It is interesting though, don’t you think? As much as guns were a part of Wild West culture, and yet they still said you couldn’t wear one in Tombstone and many other frontier towns. And nobody crying to SCOTUS about their 2A rights.

AZ was a Territory , not a state. Az wasn't a State until 1912. Not sure how the constitution applied at that juncture. Even says Territory on the notice.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Yes, very interesting that you would compare a law stating you couldn't carry your weapon to government trying to actually take away your weapon. Big difference there gmac.

Government isn’t trying to take away your guns, regardless of what Beto and the NRA say.

 

[Grandpa mac]

AZ was a Territory , not a state. Az wasn't a State until 1912. Not sure how the constitution applied at that juncture. Even says Territory on the notice.

The Constitution applies to territories.

 

[Grandpa mac]

No, I don’t think it’s interesting. For you to Juxtapose the two, shows you’re either a nit-wit or a troll or both.

Really? Tombstone for fuck sakes.

And in fact prior to Heller, it was universally accepted that communities could regulate the ownership and carry of firearms. A bad SCOTUS decision just a few years ago overturned two centuries of jurisprudence, though even Heller still leaves the door open for future review of state and local firearm regs. Tombstone is just a particularly ironic example of the fact that America had gun control laws dating back to its earliest history.

 

[Carlson-jet]

The Constitution applies to territories.

Yes, but you need someone to defend those rights. Not much money in that area in that era nor could you just email the aclu.
I imagine it would take years to get anyone to listen.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

And in fact prior to Heller, it was universally accepted that communities could regulate the ownership and carry of firearms. A bad SCOTUS decision just a few years ago overturned two centuries of jurisprudence, though even Heller still leaves the door open for future review of state and local firearm regs. Tombstone is just a particularly ironic example of the fact that America had gun control laws dating back to its earliest history.

Yea, and Democrats used to burn crosses and hang people for being black too.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Yes, but you need someone to defend those rights. Not much money in that area in that era nor could you just email the aclu.
I imagine it would take years to get anyone to listen.

So you think I can’t find prohibitions on carrying guns publicly in the original 13 colonies during the same time period? Maybe even in Washington DC right around the corner from SCOTUS?

 

[Grandpa mac]

Yea, and Democrats used to burn crosses and hang people for being black too.

So your point is that times change? Isn’t the usual 2A argument that gun rights have been immutable since the BOR?

 

[Carlson-jet]

So you think I can’t find prohibitions on carrying guns publicly in the original 13 colonies during the same time period? Maybe even in Washington DC right around the corner from SCOTUS?

I'm sure I could find where we rounded up tens of thousands of people and put them in camps. Rights have been suspended temporarily many times in the past with little protection for the people who lost those rights. There has to be someone to defend those rights against tyranny.
I doubt you are giving up any of your guns soon. Unless it's voluntary.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

So your point is that times change? Isn’t the usual 2A argument that gun rights have been immutable since the BOR?

Sure, things change. But an AR-15 more closely resembles a muzzle loading rifle than does a computer resemble a soap box. You ready to wish away the 1A as well.

Good golly you’re far too easy.

 

[monkeyswrench]

So your point is that times change? Isn’t the usual 2A argument that gun rights have been immutable since the BOR?

From what I am gathering, you are not a fan of firearms. That is your right. I have no issues with those that don't like them. I look at this much the same as vegans, it is their right. That said, if a vegan tells me not to eat meat, I will eat a steak in front of them, even if I wouldn't have even been hungry before. Politics and the general demeanor of humans tend to be much like a pendulum. The harder it swings one direction, the harder it comes back the other. It is basic human nature. The more one persists, the more the others will resist. The country was founded upon the ideas of freedom, and rights given to ensure those freedoms are maintained. What one chooses to do is in part protected by the maintenance of those freedoms. Society has only changed due to the louder voices, mostly on the left, who suddenly feel bothered by what they see. Violence has, and always will be, a part of humanity. The difference now comes with the ability to spread pictures and video so rapidly. Most of the people who protest, don't seem to be the types to truly understand the conceptual reality of a life or death scenario. Pepper spray, or being hit with a bottle or baton, is a far different sensation than the tearing of flesh or pooling of blood. People may protest, as I said, it's their right. Most fail to realize that their right to protest is in fact protected by the things they disagree with. If the populace has no weapons to defend themselves, then we are always just one bad election from losing whatever freedoms we have left. I do not carry most times, but I feel that it should be an option. If one does not carry or own, that is their decision, their right. Those that decide for me, have now overstepped their rights, and have now determined what is in my best interests, as well as my family's. In effect, trying to claim their decision should overrule my right.

 

[Carlson-jet]

From what I am gathering, you are not a fan of firearms. That is your right. I have no issues with those that don't like them. I look at this much the same as vegans, it is their right. That said, if a vegan tells me not to eat meat, I will eat a steak in front of them, even if I wouldn't have even been hungry before. Politics and the general demeanor of humans tend to be much like a pendulum. The harder it swings one direction, the harder it comes back the other. It is basic human nature. The more one persists, the more the others will resist. The country was founded upon the ideas of freedom, and rights given to ensure those freedoms are maintained. What one chooses to do is in part protected by the maintenance of those freedoms. Society has only changed due to the louder voices, mostly on the left, who suddenly feel bothered by what they see. Violence has, and always will be, a part of humanity. The difference now comes with the ability to spread pictures and video so rapidly. Most of the people who protest, don't seem to be the types to truly understand the conceptual reality of a life or death scenario. Pepper spray, or being hit with a bottle or baton, is a far different sensation than the tearing of flesh or pooling of blood. People may protest, as I said, it's their right. Most fail to realize that their right to protest is in fact protected by the things they disagree with. If the populace has no weapons to defend themselves, then we are always just one bad election from losing whatever freedoms we have left. I do not carry most times, but I feel that it should be an option. If one does not carry or own, that is their decision, their right. Those that decide for me, have now overstepped their rights, and have now determined what is in my best interests, as well as my family's. In effect, trying to claim their decision should overrule my right.

He actually owns some fairly nice arms if I remember correctly. He just wants everyone else to lose the privilege as he is better than you, me and most likely everyone else. He would vote himself as one of the exceptions imo.

 

[monkeyswrench]

He actually owns some fairly nice arms if I remember correctly. He just wants everyone else to lose the privilege as he is better than you, me and most likely everyone else. He would vote himself as one of the exceptions imo.

I am not a collector, but pretty decent with the tools I have aquired. To each their own, but even peasants have their rights here

 

[Carlson-jet]

I am not a collector, but pretty decent with the tools I have aquired. To each their own, but even peasants have their rights here

It was the peasants who bore the brunt to free this Great Nation of tyranny a couple of years ago.
Not to take away from the Men and their Families who did the Homework.

 

[Doc]

Government isn’t trying to take away your guns, regardless of what Beto and the NRA say.

Then what exactly are they trying to do?

 

[Sandlord]

This is what has the left freaking out:

The US Supreme Court said it will hear its biggest gun rights case in nearly decade — one that seeks to undercut New York City rules sharply limiting gun owners from carrying firearms outside of their homes.

The high court on Tuesday said it will take up the appeal of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. New York City, which is being fought by three city handgun owners and the National Rifle Association’s NY affiliate.

the rest of the story;
https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/supre...that-aims-to-restrict-firearm-transportation/

This case will affect every one of the 50 states in the union and if NY loses, most gun control laws in CA, NY, IL, MD, Wash DC, CT, NJ, OR, WA and HI will be unconstitutional overnight.
This lawsuit has the Left so scared, they have actually threatened the US Supreme Court.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/3...tens-u-s-supreme-court-doesnt-rule-way-wants/

Sen. Whitehouse urges the Supreme Court to reject this straightforward conclusion. If it does not, he warns it will face “restructuring,” like court packing or other changes he thinks will make the court more likely to vote the way he wants. The threat to judicial independence is obvious; nonetheless, Whitehouse says this is not a threat, but a caution. A friendly reminder, like when a mugger tells a witness not to go to police or his legs might break.

 

[was thatguy]

Nganga doesn’t drink.
Yet he keeps a fully stocked bar...very thoughtful and considerate IMO!!

 

[Grandpa mac]

Then what exactly are they trying to do?

Universal background checks.

 

[Grandpa mac]

I'm sure I could find where we rounded up tens of thousands of people and put them in camps. Rights have been suspended temporarily many times in the past with little protection for the people who lost those rights. There has to be someone to defend those rights against tyranny.
I doubt you are giving up any of your guns soon. Unless it's voluntary.

Precisely why our Founders created the Supreme Court. You are not doubt also aware that gun toting rabble like the Klan used their weapons to deprive many of their rights and too many modern murderers are using them to deprive innocents of their inalienable right to life etc. We live in a democracy and our Founders expected that so long as you are empowered to vote that is how you will make society better- not by taking up arms against your representative government.

 

[Grandpa mac]

He actually owns some fairly nice arms if I remember correctly. He just wants everyone else to lose the privilege as he is better than you, me and most likely everyone else. He would vote himself as one of the exceptions imo.

Yes, I do. What I’m saying is that the burden should be on me and everyone else who owns a gun to continually demonstrate that we deserve to be entrusted with the power to easily take human life. And that perhaps their should be limits to just how much killing power an individual needs.

 

[RCDave]

Then what exactly are they trying to do?

Gmac is soo full of it, it's flowing out his ears

 

[Grandpa mac]

He actually owns some fairly nice arms if I remember correctly. He just wants everyone else to lose the privilege as he is better than you, me and most likely everyone else. He would vote himself as one of the exceptions imo.

I agree with much of that but as Olicer Wendell Holmes or some other luminary once said, your right to swing your arm ends where the tip of my nose begins. An unlimited individual right to own a gun is now resulting in a lot of dead children and other innocents. I don’t really care about dead gangbangers killing each other, but I care very much when whackos have easy access to guns and it puts my family at risk. Whatever makes my family (and your family) safer is the goal we should all strive for.

 

[Carlson-jet]

Universal background checks.

Define "Universal" There is no life in space.

 

[was thatguy]

Then what exactly are they trying to do?

Gmac is right.
The “Gov” isn’t trying to take our guns.
What you have is predatorial Dem politicians and candidates feeding on the ignorance of their sheeple and using self labeled “mass shootings” to to gain votes on the blood of victims, for no other reason but self enrichment.
Their entire platform rests primarily on the actions of spree killers.
Without those headlines all they have is who promises more free shit.
Not a single fucking candidate or current Dem shyster in office has a single thing to say on any policy foreign or domestic.
Only “hate Trump, AR15’s are bad, hate Trump...that’s pretty much it...oh, and anyone who wants illegal alien criminals prosecuted is a racist.

I can’t attest to it, but I’ll bet they are happy every time some jack ass opens up with an AR.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Gmac is soo full of it, it's flowing out his ears

Pelosi and Schumer just told Trump exactly what their bottom line is- universal background checks. I may be full of it, but that is a fact you can look up.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Define "Universal" There is no life in space.

Every firearm sold in the United States.

 

[was thatguy]

Every firearm sold in the United States.

Lol

 

[Grandpa mac]

Gmac is right.
The “Gov” isn’t trying to take our guns.
What you have is predatorial Dem politicians and candidates feeding on the ignorance of their sheeple and using self labeled “mass shootings” to to gain votes on the blood of victims, for no other reason but self enrichment.
Their entire platform rests primarily on the actions of spree killers.
Without those headlines all they have is who promises more free shit.
Not a single fucking candidate or current Dem shyster in office has a single thing to say on any policy foreign or domestic.
Only “hate Trump, AR15’s are bad, hate Trump...that’s pretty much it...oh, and anyone who wants illegal alien criminals prosecuted is a racist.

I can’t attest to it, but I’ll bet they are happy every time some jack ass opens up with an AR.

Ah, “free shit”. Much like Republicans feel entitled to spend one out of two tax dollars on the military while slashing taxes so that we are again running trillion dollar a year deficits.

 

[Carlson-jet]

Gmac, My 11 yr old daughter is reading over my shoulder and wanted to know if you are a feminist?

 

[Grandpa mac]

Ha

Gmac, My 11 yr old daughter is reading over my shoulder and wanted to know if you are a feminist?

Haven’t given it a lot of thought. I do think women should earn equal pay for the same work performed, women should be safe from harassment and violence, and that women are awesome. Does that make me a feminist?