Feds admit in court that AR-15's are not weapons of war

[montana]

I didn't see a need to comment on it, because it's true. The only reason that the semi-auto AR-15 even exists is due to Federal and State restrictions on full-auto firearms.

True but the illegal sporting arms clause is a reality used by our courts today, no matter how unconstitutional or idiotic it is.

However, it's a distinction without a practical difference. The AR-15 was originally designed specifically for, and used as, a weapon of war. The semi-auto variant is just a slightly modified version of that weapon of war.

The semi auto AR-15 was designed and marketed for the civilian market because of the illegal sporting arm clause. The semi auto AR-15 was never adopted by the US military no matter how little difference or combat capable it is. So under the sporting use clause it is not a weapon of war. Their logic, not mine!

Although 5.56 military rifles have full-auto capability, they are used almost exclusively in semi-auto mode. Since we're talking about virtually identical firearms, that fire the same ammunition, fed from the same magazines, combat capability is, for all practical purposes, the same.

Once again, just like bolt action hunting rifles, pistols, etc used by civilians. This is nothing new even when applying the sporting use clause other than the full auto.

the reason you and others keep giving for having an AR-15 is to be able fight a tyrannical government. If the AR-15 doesn't have the same combat capability as the rifles that would be used by government forces, why on Earth would you want it to wage war??? Personally, I would want a "weapon of war" for that purpose, not a "sporting rifle."

I never said it was less effective. I stated what the sporting use clause described as civilian compatible. The left keeps trying to push farther and farther on this but was stopped in it's tracts. The argument of setting a precedent for the sporting use clause is understandable and I understand completely the unintended consequences it could have. Since the sporting use clause has already been established under other rulings, how harmful this case could be is debatable. Like I have stated before, we need a case against the NFA tax law in of itself and a correct reading and definition of the 2A to reestablish our gun rights as originally intended.

I would prefer they not be banned. I like weapons of war.

I never said that the unorganized militia no longer exists. I said the militia system originally conceived and established by the Founders no longer exists.

Since you have agreed there has never been any law or decree to eradicate the unorganized militia, it must still be intact. The system conceived and established may not have been used in a long time,but it does not mean it is not intact under our law and Constitution. The laws enabling it's mobilization are still very much intact.

My position on the 2A is that the wording indicates its intent and purpose was to ensure availability of military weapons to the members of State militias.

Meaning both organized and unorganized militias, meaning the American citizens.

It is not a straw man argument to opine that it is a very bad idea to reinforce the anti-gun position which originally spawned the "sporting use" criteria.

No, but using the 2A interpretation, "the militia does not mean the people at whole but only people in the military or national guard" and then expressing concern over the sporting use clause since it violets the 2A of every US citizen does.

I am saying it is not a win for the 2A because it won't affect anti-gun efforts, and (as LRRPF52 and JASmith noted) could potentially be damaging to us.

I agree, except we could have had a court case, "up-holding infringements on firearms under the sporting use clause other than full auto concerns" if we had lost. This is why I consider it a win.