High court to look at bump stock ban

Hunters are limited to 5 in a mag. That feels about right for a rifle. Pistols I can see maybe 10 since they are far less accurate and meant for defense. I just bought an .308 ar10 and it came with two 15 round mags. I don't want just any idiot owning one of those. I put a thermal scope (wraith brand) on it and my 12yo shot a doe with it. We mostly shoot a 6.5 creedmore 125-129 grain. This was a .308 with a 172 grain. That bullet will absolutely crush a deer. In the past we started when he was 7 with an ar-15 platform .223 80 grain then moved to a .243 100 grain. They are not the best hunting rifles but do the trick if you know how to shoot. My 12 yo has killed probably 40 deer. We like to make the whole thing into sausage and give it out to folks. I get the argument that the second amendment is not about hunting but I also don't want my neighbor owning a grenade launcher either so there needs to be a balance.

 

I was using informal language to describe that I'm not a Ranger, SEAL, Green Beret, Pararescue, etc... or similar. The point is that one does not need to be in that class of ServiceMember to be able to shoot an AR-15 to devastating consequence, even if it's only in semiautomatic mode.

 

Great reply g8trdoc. I have always wondered what regular folks like yourself consider "high capacity", as opposed to our lawmakers. The only issue with 10 is that would automatically rule out many handguns, including my Glock 19X. I have no issue with certain limits, like this bump-stock discussion, but I think we have to be careful and very clear when we start talking about limiting capacity.

 

Its about militias, which dont exist anymore so it may as well be

 

Cool. It was adopted to apply to the federal government and not the states.

 

You obviously don't visit EveryImagineableConspiracyTheoryNoMatterHowLudicrous.com.

 

Wrong on two fronts. The militia exists as long as the people exist, and the right is reserved to the people, not the militia. Same language is used for peaceable assembly in the first amendement.

So you're ok with states being able to limit the right of people to speak freely or practice their religion too, then?

 

Yeah, Ive heard this 1000 times, this is certainly not true, just a modern invention of gun nuts/consumer advocates. There's a reason the whole thing is prefaced with talking about a militia. Deciding a militia is just anyone defending themselves from street thugs is devoid of any sort of originalism these people pretend they believe in.

 

I can see the value of a few more rounds in a pistol for sure. The amount of damage someone could do with an ar-10 with 15 rounds is staggering. It’s scary that some of these creeps can access them so easily.

 

Not relevant to the discussion at all but thank you for your input!

 

Don't be so silly....apples and oranges.

Even the most casual student of the constitution understands the histories of the 2A and 14A. The 2A has never been as clear as the 2A wackos would have you believe. I assume you've read the entire 2A. It has that odd "well regulated Militia" language those people love to ignore. If you adopt the wacko interpretation of the 2A, that Militia language is complete surplusage.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Remember, though, the BoR didn't apply to the states. The 14A was ratified in 1868, some 77 years later, but the 14A did not automatically make the BoR applicable to the states. The 2A was partially incorporated against the states in 2008 and fully so in 2010.

 

Not true in GA where I hunt. The 5 round rule was waived years ago.

Pg 14 if you want to read it.
https://georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/23GAHD.pdf

 

I mean, if we really want to go down the federal constitutional rabbit hole, we need to also acknowledge that the doctrine of selective incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause is an absurd legal fiction that has no grounding whatsoever in the actual text of the amendment, and instead just got made up from whole cloth because the Supreme Court effectively broke the 14th Amendment by stripping the privileges and immunities clause (which there’s a very good argument actually did incorporate the Bill of Rights) of any meaning, and then rather than fixing that mistake decided to periodically purport to “find” whatever rights they favored at a given time hiding somewhere in the due process clause.

 

Far far more murders are committed with a handgun. More mass murders are committed with a handgun. More murders are committed with Shotguns as well ( I believe.. last time I looked the stats up this was true.)
So why the focus on the AR15? Because of the media. Because it’s scary looking? Because it is a variant of a rifle used by the military?

 

Gun to your head, somebody tells you that you need to kill 20 people over a broad area. They offer you a handgun, a shotgun, and an AR-15. Which do you choose?

 

Remember when you were complaining about other people being jerks...

 

Ar -15 no doubt. So what? The simple fact is the AR15 is NOT the weapon most likely to be used to commit murder nor is it the most likely to be used to commit mass murders. Why is it THE gun targeted and attacked? What purpose? Why isn’t the 9mm handgun attacked on the same ( or even higher) scale?

 

Yes I do. Did I insinuate anyone was a racists? Hated Muslims? Or did I point out that someone’s personal feelings on guns is not relevant to the conversation about the 2a?

 

And why would you choose the AR-15, specifically?

 

But let’s play this game. I do see a reason for high capacity magazines and extended magazine tubes. I hate reloading. Time consuming when in the range. And I’m an avid hunter and someone who spends a good amount of time on the shooting range.
Now, do my personal feeling have any bearing on the conversation? Or, as I stated, are the not relevant at all.