Is it time to talk about guns?

Being a citizen grants you the rights, and the government doesn't get to infringe on them according to the 2nd.

 

Because it's just another autoloading rifle that does exactly what 100 other models do. It's not different.

 

I was using them to point out that the two rifles you chose between were the exact same firearm, and that while the ar15 and m16 appear similar, they are different.

 

opps my mistake, I thought you were referring to a picture of 2 rifles

 

I am in 100% agreement

Joe Biden 1985: Criminals Will Get Firearms 'With or Without Gun Control'

He added, “During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”

 

For accurate information

5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia


In service 1980–present
Used by NATO, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, other major non-NATO allies

 

As a matter of fact, none of the Bill of Rights give us more than protection from government infringement. But the Amendment only prohibits government infringement of the rights it provides. There have been basically two ways the courts have interpreted the amendment, nether of which backs the expansive interpretation you've claimed for it. One is to emphasize the opening clause: "“(a) well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..., " and to hold that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right, and that the right is conditioned on a militia system which is no longer in place. A well regulated militia referred to a military force supervised by state government. By this view, "the Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia." It was a response to widespread fears that the federal government would disband the state militias. Stevens, et al. Dissent. D.C. v. Heller. This was the predominant judicial interpretation for seven decades, starting with U.S. v. Miller (1939),and was the view of the dissenters in D.C. v. Heller: Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

The other view, adopted by the Court in D.C. v. Heller, is that the Amendment did confer an individual right to bear arms independent of militia service, but that: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited....Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms>" So there you go. Even the most pro-gun decision in the history of the Supreme Court recognized that all of the reasonable restrictions proposed in the wake of recent mass shootings are not Second Amendment violations.

 

Depends on the "criminal". Many of the recent mass shootings were not committed by hardened criminals with long records, but by crazy mixed-up eighteen to twenty-one year olds whose connections to the underworld might be limited. And most firearm deaths are inflicted accidentally or in the heat of passion by family members, friends and neighbors; or by the deceased in a suicide. .

 

Suicides accounted for more than half of U.S. gun deaths in 2020

 

What ?

 

What changed with the NATO agreement.

5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia


In the spring of 1962, Remington submitted the specifications of the .223 Remington to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI). In July 1962, operational testing ended with a recommendation for adoption of the M-16 rifle chambered in .223 Remington.[5]

In September 1963, the .223 Remington cartridge was officially accepted and named "Cartridge, 5.56mm ball, M193." The specification includes a Remington-designed bullet and the use of IMR4475 powder which resulted in a muzzle velocity of 3,250 ft/s (991 m/s) and a chamber pressure of 52,000 psi.[5]

In 1970, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.[12]Of the cartridges tendered, the .223 Remington (M193) was the basis for a new design created by FN Herstal. The FN-created cartridge was named "5.56×45mm NATO" with a military designation of SS109 in NATO and M855 in the U.S.[13] These new SS109 ball cartridges required a 228 mm (1-in-9 inch) twist rate while adequately stabilizing the longer L110 tracer projectile required an even faster, 178 mm (1-in-7 inch), twist rate.[5]

The Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization as the second NATO standard rifle cartridge which led to the October 1980 STANAG 4172. The SS109 used a 62 gr full metal jacket bullet with a seven grain mild steel tip to move the center of gravity rearward, increasing flight stability and thereby the chances of striking the target tip-first at longer ranges, in part to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a WWII U.S. M1 helmet at 800 meters (which was also the requirement for the 7.62×51mm NATO). An actual helmet was not used for developmental testing, but an SAE 1010 or SAE 1020 mild steel plate, positioned to be struck at exactly 90 degrees. It had a slightly lower muzzle velocity but better long-range performance due to higher sectional density and a superior drag coefficient. This requirement made the SS109 (M855) round less capable of fragmentation than the M193.

 

And I said, I am in 100% agreement with his statement, nothing more…..