Sarbanes: Your AR is a Weapon of War Not a Hunting Rifle

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Actually I believe what I want to say is that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

    The full quote you referenced is
    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
    from District of Columbia vs. Heller.

    Besides that, there is no legal hunting in DC so hunting is irrelevant to the argument.

    Your still wrong. I am aware of the quote. It should be noted that I left off the example portion because this discussion is about the scope of the amendment with respect to hunting. Are you saying that hunting is not a lawful purpose? It certainly was mentioned as a lawful purpose in Heller.

    Are you trying to say that the 2A only applies to DC and the federal government? McDonald and SCOTUS would disagree with you.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    Your wrong.

    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes" Last time I checked hunting was a lawful purpose for a firearm. I believe what you want to say is that it is not limited to hunting.

    I believe your not correct. At the time the BOR was written, you could hunt with a bow and arrow. Which are arms also. The 2a purpose was to clearly state that the right to arms was already given. And not to be infringed. Sardines is a moron. He is trying to act like he knows what he's talking about.
    Your getting lost in the weeds. Saying we are wrong is being unnecessarily combative with your allies.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    Your still wrong. I am aware of the quote. It should be noted that I left off the example portion because this discussion is about the scope of the amendment with respect to hunting. Are you saying that hunting is not a lawful purpose? It certainly was mentioned as a lawful purpose in Heller.

    Are you trying to say that the 2A only applies to DC and the federal government? McDonald and SCOTUS would disagree with you.

    Your now posturing that the Founders wanted to clarify that arms were for hunting. Not for defense. I won't add a question mark.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    Also, no where is hunting mentioned in the BoR. So to extrapolate hunting with 2A is not uncommon due to the right to bear arms. To just go out and harvest game is illegal. You have to have a license.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    The Left finally needs to face the fact that the Second Amendment is about war, not hunting.

    They just don't get that "freedom and liberty from tyranny" thing, the reason why the Founders put it in the Bill of Rights based on their own firsthand experience.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I believe your not correct. At the time the BOR was written, you could hunt with a bow and arrow. Which are arms also. The 2a purpose was to clearly state that the right to arms was already given. And not to be infringed. Sardines is a moron. He is trying to act like he knows what he's talking about.
    Your getting lost in the weeds. Saying we are wrong is being unnecessarily combative with your allies.

    Your now posturing that the Founders wanted to clarify that arms were for hunting. Not for defense. I won't add a question mark.

    You say that I am not correct, but then contradict yourself by giving examples that support what I am saying. I don't see pointing out deficiencies in an argument as being combative. Letting people make mistakes seems much more counterproductive.

    I am posturing that the 2A covers an individuals right to ALL traditional lawful uses. While Heller was primarily about the core right to self defense, there are other traditional lawful uses that apply to the 2A. Hunting is one such traditional lawful use that is protected by the 2A. To say that the 2A has NOTHING to do with other traditional lawful uses (hunting) is to ignore portions of the 2A. Isn't a threat to one portion a threat to it all?
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    You say that I am not correct, but then contradict yourself by giving examples that support what I am saying. I don't see pointing out deficiencies in an argument as being combative. Letting people make mistakes seems much more counterproductive.

    I am posturing that the 2A covers an individuals right to ALL traditional lawful uses. While Heller was primarily about the core right to self defense, there are other traditional lawful uses that apply to the 2A. Hunting is one such traditional lawful use that is protected by the 2A. To say that the 2A has NOTHING to do with other traditional lawful uses (hunting) is to ignore portions of the 2A. Isn't a threat to one portion a threat to it all?

    Your going to case law. I'm going to the founding documents. Lawful purposes fine. The reason the 2nd amendment was put there was to make sure citizens had the right to defend themselves,against a tyrannical government or someone that wanted to take from them life and liberty. You keep with that hunting angle. Maybe they'll let you keep your recurve.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    What I still don't get is how we are wrong. And, why you find it so necessary to point this out. I think you are so missing the point.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    I contend that you could outlaw hunting and still not violate the 2A.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,234
    Carroll County
    I agree.

    The Miller case upheld the ban on short barreled shotguns on the rational that they were NOT weapons of war.

    That would seem to support an argument that the 2A protects ONLY weapons of war.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    I contend that you could outlaw hunting and still not violate the 2A.

    Probably. As stated above in my post. Hunting requires a license. So only the ones that want to hunt, can. After they pay the man his fee/tax. Btw, I know where that money goes and I am fine with it.
     

    noddaz

    bonehead
    Jan 9, 2014
    529
    Arnold
    Just be thankful.

    Be thankful that some "do-gooder" doesn't take it upon himself or herself to lump any semi-auto firearm into the category of "assault weapon". Or to have someone decide that the right to bear arms only refers to the type of weapons that were available in 1787.
    Both of these seem to be impossible at this time. But in the near future? Who knows.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    The Democratic Socialism of the Sarbanes' Democratic Party will send us all back to the stone age, which will make the rocks in front of my house weapons of war. Of course, not having guns will make it easier for the likes of Ocasio-Cortez and Jealous to take private property.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    The Democratic Socialism of the Sarbanes' Democratic Party will send us all back to the stone age, which will make the rocks in front of my house weapons of war. Of course, not having guns will make it easier for the likes of Ocasio-Cortez and Jealous to take private property.


    They would do what the socialists did in Venezuela. First, they disarmed the citizenry, then Maduro armed 400,000 of his own loyalists.
     

    pbharvey

    Habitual Testifier
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    30,158
    What problem are we solving by banning semi-automatic rifles? Oh wait - it's not about solving any particular problem, we just don't think anyone should own a firearm.

    In 2013 when I was visiting my state delegate I said you know most gun crimes are committed with a handgun, not a rifle. Banning AR-15 rifles isn’t going to reduce crime.
    Her response?
    Well maybe we should ban handguns too.
    :rolleyes:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,470
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom