JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Sadly there is no guns made that are not covered. What is really sad is that we have to constantly try to say the AR is not something, not covered, of course it is. We are in this race because the people who want to take guns are always looking for the next compromise gun owners will go for. When they get anther they move on to the next. Look how well it works. When This state was making noise about saying those old enough to serve and vote should not be able to buy an AR, even in this group I saw people saying they supported this idea. :s0054:
When I told them this is them saying they are willing to give up their right to an AR they of course got mad, saying that is not what they support. Well let them take them (the AR) from one group and how long do any of them really think it takes till the anti gun people come for their AR next? Amazing to watch this. I guess I have to hand it to the anti gun folks, they have found a system that is so far working quite well. Just get gun owners to swallow gun control a spoon full at a time. :mad:
 
In a general sense....there is no difference between the firearms pictured below.
Both are just rifles...both are meant to accurately place a projectile on a target.
Both should be covered by the 2nd Amendment...
Andy
DSC06814.jpg
J Henry Trade Rifle Circa 1800
AR15.jpg
AR15 Carbine assembled by me in 2018
Andy
 
Fine argument on "common use". But also what is good is the "shut up, go fornicate yourself, it is supposed to be a free country" line. :s0155:
 
Last Edited:
They don't care. That common use language means nothing to them anymore. They change their language every day so you'll never know what they want.
 
They don't care. That common use language means nothing to them anymore. They change their language every day so you'll never know what they want.

Indeed. The human garbage that rule over us are not concerned with language, facts, or reason.
 
Forgive my ignorance, what does "common use" have to do with our constitutional right? Does the 2A define whats "commonly used" as the only arm protected?

Not debating but eager to learn, I feel like Ive heard this before but not certain..
 
In a general sense....there is no difference between the firearms pictured below.
Both are just rifles...both are meant to accurately place a projectile on a target.
Both should be covered by the 2nd Amendment...
Andy
View attachment 642087
J Henry Trade Rifle Circa 1800
View attachment 642088
AR15 Carbine assembled by me in 2018
Andy
isnt the top one one of those "not a firearm" deals tho? :rolleyes:;);):p:D



u know im just playin lol :D
 
yeah atleast 423 million guns. doesnt include home built ones like 80%ers and the like :):D

This latest bunch of crapola on guns is what got me to get my feet wet with the 80%. I have heard of this for a long time and was amused by it. Never thought anything was wrong with it. Just was not interested. This last couple times this state went all in got me to finally try and damned if it was not fun and addicting. So of course now many of the anti rights folk are all in on we need to stop this, as if the criminals could give two turds if the guns they have are "ghost guns" or not.
For me it was very fulfilling to build my first and head to the range and have it work! I suspect a lot more people are getting to try this now for the same reason I did. Sick and tired of watching law makers coddle criminals while they tell the law abiding gun owners that they are the real problem here.:mad:
 
The U.S. versus Miller of 1939. Look that SCOTUS case up. It defined arms protected by 2A as being suitable for militia/military use and in common use

D.C. versus Heller affirmed the Common Use judgement and declared that DC's semiauto handgun ban was unconstitutional due to semiauto handguns being in common use
 
I do not see that anywhere in the ruling, the ruling only upheld that short barreled shottys were NFA items.


I still want to know what "common use" has to do with the 2A?

Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817-18. The common use standard is entirely adequate for resolving a broad category of claims. It is especially suited to resolving challenges to supply restrictions—i.e., gun bans of various types. On the other hand, Heller's common use standard is insufficient for evaluating regulations that just add friction to exercise of the right. It is at this stage pure speculation how the jurisprudence for resolving those types of questions will evolve. For discussion of the possibilities see Nicholas J. Johnson, Administering the Second Amendment: Law, Politics and Taxonomy, 50 Santa Clara L. Rev. (forthcoming 2010) [hereinafter Administering].


From the decision;
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Also in Heller, is noted that 2A is not unlimited:rolleyes:
 
You know what'd be freaking hilarious? If the ATF enacted a rule change judging pistol braced AR "pistols"/firearms to be "SBR"s, then by the virtue of the number of ARs with pistol braces having been built/sold since the SB1 braces, they have to accept that "SBR'"s are in common use :rolleyes:

On the other hand, how is it that not one State have sued the Feds to nullify the NFA1934 acts, FOPA1986's Hughes Amendment using the Miller ans Heller decision; in Miller that arms suitable for military and militia uses are protected and in Heller, arms in common use are also protected, by virtue of civilian PDs using SBRs (M4 variants) and SBS (lots of breacher shotguns out there) and MP5s? :rolleyes:
 
In a general sense....there is no difference between the firearms pictured below.
Both are just rifles...both are meant to accurately place a projectile on a target.
Both should be covered by the 2nd Amendment...
Andy
View attachment 642087
J Henry Trade Rifle Circa 1800
View attachment 642088
AR15 Carbine assembled by me in 2018
Andy

Wait a minute.... YOU have a rifle that isn't black powder? :D
 

Upcoming Events

New Classified Ads

Back Top