Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns

[polymorpheous]

Funny that my thread title was edited.
The post doesn’t show that it was edited at all.

[BoringGuy45]

It all comes down to SCOTUS and how fast and how they rule. We need a definitive ARs and 30rnd mags are Kosher ruling, toot sweet. Then you are negotiating from a position of strength.

ETA: It is funny to listen to McDonald, after Heller gave the individual right, that even with this codified, the left still could come up with all kinds of ways to make it meaningless. Registrations, fees, gun locks and others things that make the right hard to use.

In the next round of SCOTUS oral arguments, someone needs to make it explicitly clear that we, the people, have the right to defend ourselves no matter what their interpretation of the 2A. Blacks had the right to be free before and after the Emancipation Proc and 14A. If you recind the 14A, blacks still have the right to be free. Stop trying to say you are 'giving' me these rights. The 2A acknowledges my right and makes clear to the govt that they don't have the power to take away that right. If they try to take away that right, they are only reinforcing the need and validity of my right.

One of the Circuit Court rulings may have opened up a can of worms for the anti-gunners. This is from an NPR article in 2016, when the SC declined to hear an appeal to a 2nd Circuit ruling that upheld the NY and CT bans:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...pons-ban-stand

The question before the Second Circuit, then, was whether assault weapons are commonly owned and whether the weapons are "dangerous and unusual" in hands of law-abiding citizens.

The Second Circuit answered yes to the first question but found that empirical evidence to answer that second question was "elusive." The Court decided that owning weapons like the AR-15 is, indeed, protected by the Second Amendment.

But, the Court argued, government can sometimes have a legitimate interest in impinging upon a Constitutional right. In this case, the Court ruled, banning assault weapons can save lives.

So the liberal judges admitted that AR-15s are protected by the Constitution (and, we can safely assume, most other semi-auto weapons). BUT, they also ruled that the government can simply ignore the Constitution whenever they claim they need to do so. In other words, the Constitution is like the Pirates Code in Pirates of the Caribbean: More like guidelines rather than actual rules. I can't see how the conservative/originalists on current court, even Roberts, would agree with a ruling like this.

It was a blessing that the SC did not take this case when it came before them, as with the then 4-4 bench, this whole ruling would have been upheld. It wouldn't be the end of civilian ARs; it would be the end of all our rights.

[arptsprt]

Yup. And while watching the Georgia v Kentucky game on CBS as we speak, 60 Minutes is touting highlights for tomorrow night’s episode: “The Weapon”... What 60 Minutes has uncovered about the weapon that been used in the recent mass shootings...”

Remember, there just as many retired and current ATF reps who don’t share the same opinion as this wanker. Of course, their opinions don’t fit the desired narrative.

And the beat goes on... blah blah blah

Who cares what some .gov parasite thinks? This is all just B.S. to get people fired up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PatrioticDisorder]

That may be one of the most disappointing posts I've ever read on this site. Isn't it high time we learned that compromise does not work with the left or the right for that matter? Maybe you're ok with Uncle Sugar knowing all your business, but I sure as hell am not.

Apparently you didn’t read the first part of my post.

[ABNAK]

Why worry about if a gun is NFA registered or not, if someone is coming to confiscate it you either nut up or you become a serf, there is no “oh, I sold it to so and so before.”

Something I posted in the other thread:

Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.

In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances.

[Straight Shooter]

In the first 5 seconds of that tripe, I wanted to punch that guy in his shiney ass teeth. No diff than Fienstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schmuck Schumer,ect.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So the liberal judges admitted that AR-15s are protected by the Constitution (and, we can safely assume, most other semi-auto weapons). BUT, they also ruled that the government can simply ignore the Constitution whenever they claim they need to do so. In other words, the Constitution is like the Pirates Code in Pirates of the Caribbean: More like guidelines rather than actual rules. I can't see how the conservative/originalists on current court, even Roberts, would agree with a ruling like this.

It was a blessing that the SC did not take this case when it came before them, as with the then 4-4 bench, this whole ruling would have been upheld. It wouldn't be the end of civilian ARs; it would be the end of all our rights.

I think this is the tact that they will play. Yes we have the right, but we can restrict that right. Now if you can add restrictions on rights so that the right is meaningless, what is the use of the Constitution. Obviously, there is a balance there. The left's favorite argument revolves around the 1A and is that you can't yell "Fire' in a crowded theater, you can't call for violence, you can't perjure, slander, or libel someone. Look at all of these restrictions, in the name of 'safety' and fairness.

That is a pretty weak argument, since there is no real limit to what you could say is a potentially legitimate restriction on firearms in the name of safety. Firearms are meant to, designed for, and used to kill people; words are not. If preventing death by firearms is your goal, the only way to achieve that is through getting rid of them all. And what right is protected then? The restrictions around 'free speech' are about the misuse of the right. By all means make it illegal to threaten people with a gun, kill (unjustly) people with a gun, restrict people like felons from guns. The last one goes far further than any 1A restriction.

Actually, I got a bit wordy and off-track. I really think that we need to (and I am guilty of it too at times) saying that the collectivists assault on the 2A takes away our rights. It does not. We have that right whether the 2A held holy or thrown in the garbage. We never so clearly had the right that is explained in the 2A as when the govt tries to take away our ability to exercise that right.

Something I posted in the other thread:

Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.

In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances.

Fights are won by sneaky bastards, wars are won by brave, smart, sneaky bastards- and then you write the history.

[Dr. Bullseye]

Forget that noise, when discussing the left we are not dealing with reasonable people, we are dealing with people who would be members of the communist party if it were socially acceptable or if they were born in Cuba. No “compromises” to be made with people like this.... If our elected officials went for that, next to be put on the list are handguns, the mass killers would move to using handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter used, 10 round limit or not, it really doesn’t make a tiddly winks difference in body count.... And once handguns are there we will need truck control and control of anything you can make a bomb with, followed by sharp object control. The real agenda of the “common sense gun control” crowd is disarmament to implement further people control.

Now if we were dealing with rational people (and we are not, so I say not one inch more), I’d be cool with making AR’s & similar rifles NFA for the repeal if 922(o). I mean, every long gun I own is NFA anyway, so it wouldn’t change my life much.

Hell yes!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we should take AR 15s away from the ATF? The very idea is to have a weapon of war JUST as GOOD as the military has. By the way, it says "arms", not guns. This means arms just like the Army has---all forms of arms. So, if you don't like civilians having weapons of war, change the Constitution.

[ABNAK]

Fights are won by sneaky bastards, wars are won by brave, smart, sneaky bastards- and then you write the history.

Spot on! That is exactly my point.

[PatrioticDisorder]

Something I posted in the other thread:

Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.

In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances.

If you ever even purchased a firearms accessory with a credit card, .gov will be kicking your door out if/when the confiscation happens. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.