I think that's a question of politics. As I recall, 'Exploders' used to be generally available, so 'bystander-safe' ammunition might be classified as safe as well. Jumping in on the 'weapon of war' debate: a rock or a stick or a thigh bone can be a weapon of war, and no doubt was for our distant ancestors, as in this brilliant scene from Stanley Kubrick's 2001. . [The cut I linked to lacks the best part, where the spinning thigh-bone-tool segues into a spacecraft docking with a spinning space station, neatly illustrating 3 million years of human progress.Space stations are also weapons of war, of course.] It's a question of context. Surely, in a military situation, you would want most of your combatants to be armed with a weapon pretty close in characteristics to an AR15, especially its light weight and 20-round magazine capacity, which you don't need for a deer, or at least our current deer. It would be nice if some simple modification could make one out of ten fully automatic, of course. In the meantime, it's the best we have for waging a civil war if it comes to that, which is why every real American should own one.
If it was made for war, the US military would issue it as opposed to the M16 let alone the Mark 17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Forces#Rifles God you're bad at this, mate. You want to argue firearms, but from the looks of it don't even know what you're blabbering about.
All this is just ridiculous semantics. The AR15 is the civilian version of a rifle made for use in war. It's the best that we can get our hands on legally right now, so stock up while you can. In the meantime, for everone's amusement, here's the retelling of a famous fairy tale about home defense: Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf As soon as Wolf began to feel That he would like a decent meal, He went and knocked on Grandma's door. When Grandma opened it, she saw The sharp white teeth, the horrid grin, And Wolfie said, ``May I come in?'' Poor Grandmamma was terrified, ``He's going to eat me up!'' she cried. And she was absolutely right. He ate her up in one big bite. But Grandmamma was small and tough, And Wolfie wailed, ``That's not enough! I haven't yet begun to feel That I have had a decent meal!'' He ran around the kitchen yelping, ``I've got to have a second helping!'' Then added with a frightful leer, ``I'm therefore going to wait right here Till Little Miss Red Riding Hood Comes home from walking in the wood.'' He quickly put on Grandma's clothes, (Of course he hadn't eaten those). He dressed himself in coat and hat. He put on shoes, and after that He even brushed and curled his hair, Then sat himself in Grandma's chair. In came the little girl in red. She stopped. She stared. And then she said, ``What great big ears you have, Grandma.'' ``All the better to hear you with,'' the Wolf replied. ``What great big eyes you have, Grandma.'' said Little Red Riding Hood. ``All the better to see you with,'' the Wolf replied. He sat there watching her and smiled. He thought, I'm going to eat this child. Compared with her old Grandmamma She's going to taste like caviar. Then Little Red Riding Hood said, ``But Grandma, what a lovely great big furry coat you have on.'' ``That's wrong!'' cried Wolf. ``Have you forgot To tell me what BIG TEETH I've got? Ah well, no matter what you say, I'm going to eat you anyway.'' The small girl smiles. One eyelid flickers. She whips a pistol from her knickers. She aims it at the creature's head And bang bang bang, she shoots him dead. A few weeks later, in the wood, I came across Miss Riding Hood. But what a change! No cloak of red, No silly hood upon her head. She said, ``Hello, and do please note My lovely furry wolfskin coat.'' Roald Dahl, Revolting Rhymes
For those who question the legal semantics of the rifle.. Many of the weapons civilians are able to access legally (with a permit/background check mind you) are also often used by our boys overseas and front lines... https://www.pewpewtactical.com/civilian-legal-military-guns/ This includes the Steyr AUG, FN SCAR, and the HK MP5 All of which are equally, if not more effective at killing than the AR-15 As for users claiming it is a "weapon of war" https://www.quora.com/How-many-AR-15-rifles-are-in-use-by-the-military-world-wide
I posted evidence that clearly stated the AR 15 was made for war. Yakamaru clearly did not post any rebuttal that it was made for war. Instead Yakamaru made it personal because the facts did not support Yaka's position.
Using your Quira link ... Actually Ron Prashun is wrong. It was U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay >"My solution to the problem would be to tell the North Vietnamese Communists frankly that they've got to drawn in their horns and stop their aggression or we're going to bomb them into the stone age."< Yep, that Curtis LeMay who was portrayed as Gen. Buck Turgidson (George C Scott) in Dr. Strangelove... Gen. Ley May was looking for a replacement for the U.S. Air Force standard issued service rifle the M-1 carbine and the full auto M-2 carbine and chose the AR-15 before the U.S. Army was forced to adopt the M-16. The Air Force took delivery of AR-15's and they were issued to airmen security forces as their service rifle. Gen. Curtis LeMay.
Again, you're terrible at this. https://www.ammoland.com/2016/04/ar-15-rifle-historical-time-line/ The AR-15 was made with a civilian market in mind. Civilian market ≠ Weapon of war. We also have to distinguish between MADE for war and USED for war. The AR-15 is not used for war nor was it made for war.
While true, these are not the AR15s the anti-gun left refers to when they talk about 'weapons of war" and use that falsehood as an argument to have them banned.
Again, personal attack merely guts your argument. That the weapon had a civilian market appeal in no way invalidates all of the evidence that it was made for. The moving of the goal posts from "MADE for war" to "USED for war" further guts your argument.
During the American Revolution both the British redcoats and Washington's Continental army were armed with military smooth bore muskets. The Colonial militiamen were armed with their civilian hunting rifles, rifled barrel Kentucky Rifles that were more deadlier having more than twice the range of the military muskets. Military rifles are suppose to take a beating and keep on shooting. While civilian rifles tend to be lighter and more accurate and kill things from long distances. Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock rifle of choice was the (Pre 64) Winchester Mod-70 chambered for the 30-06. The Pre-64 Winchester M-70 is nothing more than a civilianized German Kar-98
All of this is semantics. A bolt-action rifle with a five-round magazine can be a 'weapon of war', and indeed was. What the anti-gun side wants to do is to say that large-magazine-capacity semi-automatic weapons should be banned, because they are not really for hunting deer, and not as useful for home defense as other weapons like handguns and shotguns. Of course they are right. Old Bismarck had it right when he observed that all the great questions of mankind are decided not by majority vote, but by blood and iron. What these weapons might be useful for is a situation in which mobs of reparation-seekers are moving towards your neighborhood, and you want to discourage them at 400 meters rather than 40, and can do so by walking your bullets up into them ... or ... inconceivable as this is to most Americans ... a situation in which the things we take for granted regarding the stability and protection and political neutrality of the state, has broken down beyond repair, or is in danger of doing so. The presence of a few million Americans with 'weapons of war' who are determined to defend their traditional system of government might be a factor that helps preserve it, or, in the worst case, preserve it on a diminished territory. People who think this might be a possibility, however remote, need to buy an AR15 and a thousand rounds of ammunition, while they can. (This includes liberals, some of whom believe that Mr Trump is leading us towards fascism, and one of the proofs of this is that he's not taking away our guns. Or something. I confess to being such a stupid old reactionary that I don't follow this logic.) They also need to do other things -- legal things -- but that's a topic for another thread.
Then by all means, go about actually proving such beyond a reasonable doubt. Do not claim such, do not suggest such, actually go about proving such.
All meaningless and irrelevant. What the article cited on the part of yourself fails to mention, is that at least one of the courts who ruled on the matter determined the prohibition was justified on the basis of the public believing it was safe, even if it was not. Except for the fact that such is not actually the case. Such pertains exclusively to the original prototype. It, however, is not the current AR-15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15 Simply because the name is similar, does not make it the same thing. A terrorist used the name of the late Ted Kennedy as an alias. Does such mean Ted Kennedy was a terrorist?
What is the citation for such? Thus demonstrating the stupidity of the phrase "weapons of war" and how it holds no meaning. Simply because it is not suited for deer with the standard cartridge does not mean anything of substance. It is perfectly adequate for smaller game animals such as coyotes or feral hogs, or any other nuisance species that currently have "shoot on sight" classification in the various states. That said, if the AR-15 is chambered for a different round of ammunition, such as the 6.8,, Remington SPC cartridge, it is then rendered adequate for use with deer. One simply needs to change out the upper assembly by popping out two retaining pins. And yet the current AR-15 cannot be modified into a fully-automatic firearm. That is why the M16 rifle and M4 carbine exist.
The followup case, McDonald said that a state cannot prohibit an entire class of firearms in common use. Such is why the handgun prohibition in the city of Chicago was overturned.
You wrote, " A state can ban a class of firearms in common usage. Sorry." Heller permits SCOTUS to say 'yes' to that.
Typo. You know perfectly well that states can’t ban a class of weapon. SCOTUS has told you in no uncertain terms that you can’t.
