• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Upholds Bans on America’s Most Popular Rifles[W:381]

betuadollar said:
This is true. In NY we have refused en masse to register. Luckily though we are very liberal minded here, others may not have been so kind.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. if the liberals in NY had their way.. they would be arresting gun owners left and right.. and throwing them in jail until they wasted away.

Luckily.. most of NY is conservative, and the police and sheriffs won't enforce these unconstitutional laws.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. if the liberals in NY had their way.. they would be arresting gun owners left and right.. and throwing them in jail until they wasted away.

Luckily.. most of NY is conservative, and the police and sheriffs won't enforce these unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...

I think you figured us out.
 
Crimefree said:
It is sad to say but you do have a point in that firearm organisation with few exceptions take any interest in the propaganda of gun control and what that is doing. If these blithering idiots don't know that a law cannot be passed without public acceptance and realise that OUR rights depend on PUBLIC opposition to gun control then members better wake them up. If our rights are subdivisible and can be trampled on by gun control do nothing to stop gun control "educating" the public
Click to expand...

It is sad to say but you do have a point
Click to expand...

Glad we can agree; that's all I've been sayin. The pro gun groups in this country MUST get off the propaganda wagon and on to the common sense solution wagon and to do so will entail not reacting to anti gun propaganda. Mass shootings as a social problem and what weapons mass shooters use is not anti gun propaganda, but an issue that needs common sense from both sides of the argument, or the public at large is going to run right over the pro gun side like a freight train - in order to save their families. The general public will insist that they too have a right to be free of the threat of mass shootings in their schools, churches and shopping centers, and they will lobby their representatives to take action, and THAT is the public acceptance that you are referring to with respect to the law. Pro gun thinking (as it is) will be deemed antiquated and the end result could be, shotguns hunting rifles and revolvers... THAT can easily happen while leaving the second amendment intact: stranger things have happened.

That is the slippery slope as I see it.

Now that we have an agreement of issue, a serious dialogue can begin.
 
Crimefree said:
Public demand.
Click to expand...

The pro gun side will never foster enough public demand to even insult judges who rule in favor of public safety over method of execution.
 
haymarket said:
We do since poll after poll a year and two ago demonstrated that level of support for universal background checks on all firearms purchases.

Here is verifiable evidence of that support

Gabby Giffords says Americans "overwhelmingly" support expanding background checks | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

now you don't.. because a poll of 1000 people claiming it knows that 90% of americans want universal background checks is suspect.

Just like a poll that claimed after polling 1000 people 90% of americans want abortion to be illegal would be suspect.
 
jet57 said:
Glad we can agree; that's all I've been sayin. The pro gun groups in this country MUST get off the propaganda wagon and on to the common sense solution wagon and to do so will entail not reacting to anti gun propaganda. Mass shootings as a social problem and what weapons mass shooters use is not anti gun propaganda, but an issue that needs common sense from both sides of the argument, or the public at large is going to run right over the pro gun side like a freight train - in order to save their families. The general public will insist that they too have a right to be free of the threat of mass shootings in their schools, churches and shopping centers, and they will lobby their representatives to take action, and THAT is the public acceptance that you are referring to with respect to the law. Pro gun thinking (as it is) will be deemed antiquated and the end result could be, shotguns hunting rifles and revolvers... THAT can easily happen while leaving the second amendment intact: stranger things have happened.

That is the slippery slope as I see it.

Now that we have an agreement of issue, a serious dialogue can begin.
Click to expand...

Of course you have to react to anti gun propaganda... only be doing so with logical rebuttal can we get past the emotional diatribe that the anti gun propaganda stirs up.

There is absolutely NO evidence or even LOGIC to support the idea that universal background checks will in any way to anything to reduce mass shootings. What these mass shooters do is already illegal.. and they are not going to be deterred by another law saying.. (gee its illegal without a background check)
 
Crimefree said:
[h=1]Federal Appeals Court Upholds Bans on America’s Most Popular Rifles and Magazines.[/h]
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151019/federal-appeals-court-upholds-bans-on-america-s-most-popular-rifles-and-magazine


If any further evidence were necessary of what’s at stake with the 2016 general election, a ruling issued today by the U.S. District Court for the Second Circuit should provide it. The court’s opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc., Inc., v. Cuomo largely upheld Connecticut and New York laws passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. The laws banned America’s most popular modern rifles, including the AR-15, and magazines for any firearm with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

Once again, this opinion signals a judiciary unwilling to uphold the Second Amendment or the U.S. Supreme Court’s reading of that provision. In the landmark Heller case, the Supreme Court invalidated D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, deferring to the choice of the American people on what sort of firearms are best suited for home defense. It also held that the availability of alternative firearms did not change its analysis.

If justice is to be served in this case at all, it will now have to come from the U.S. Supreme Court. If or when that will happen is anybody’s guess. What is once again eminently clear, however, is that lower courts are not likely to interfere even with “serious encroachments” on Second Amendment rights. Fortunately, the decision says nothing about protections of the right that can be afforded through proactive legislation, meaning that gun owners’ best resort is still the political process.

Citizens need to learn what that means, it means get off your backside and educate people about the safety and security firearm ownership is. That public safety cannot be enhanced by disarming citizens. Challenge all gun control propaganda in the media. Write, phone and vote with your safety in mind. If you think the NRA or judiciary is going to do it for you better think again. The courts belong to government not citizens. Every voice does count.
Click to expand...

I made a thread about this... A WWWHIIIILLLLEEEE AAAGGGGOOOO.

Other than that, yeah, this sucked.
 
jaeger19 said:
now you don't.. because a poll of 1000 people claiming it knows that 90% of americans want universal background checks is suspect.

Just like a poll that claimed after polling 1000 people 90% of americans want abortion to be illegal would be suspect.
Click to expand...

he's bought the propaganda, and he's still trying to sell it 2 years later.

as is the norm, Haymarkets arguments concerning gun fall apart when we cast aside liberal propaganda and take a deeper look.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, they were clearly wrong - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

you are correct, and he is dead wrong, again.
 
jaeger19 said:
Of course you have to react to anti gun propaganda... only be doing so with logical rebuttal can we get past the emotional diatribe that the anti gun propaganda stirs up.

There is absolutely NO evidence or even LOGIC to support the idea that universal background checks will in any way to anything to reduce mass shootings. What these mass shooters do is already illegal.. and they are not going to be deterred by another law saying.. (gee its illegal without a background check)
Click to expand...

The trouble with your point is that there is no logical rebuttals to be had by the pro gun crowd. That is very near the heart of the problem. THAT'S WHY, this assault weapons thing is going all the way up the food chain. The gun crowd has had umpteen years to overturn ONE gun law in a state, using logical common sense, and just like with health care - they ain't done it!

You may SAY that there is no logic, but the law does not agree with you, nor do any of the millions of people who want something done about gun violence in this country. And the gun crowd is going to have to face it or get small in their holes, one 'er the other.
 
Thrilla said:
he's bought the propaganda, and he's still trying to sell it 2 years later.

as is the norm, Haymarkets arguments concerning gun fall apart when we cast aside liberal propaganda and take a deeper look.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, they were clearly wrong - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

you are correct, and he is dead wrong, again.
Click to expand...

thanks for the link. :2wave:

I would love to actually see the questions asked by these polls but have never seen a production of their questions. Its seems a no brainer that something is amiss. Supposedly everyone 90% wants background checks..

Yet polling on defeats of background check bills indicate people are not supportive of background check bills. So what the anti gunners claim simply doesn't jive.
 
jet57 said:
The trouble with your point is that there is no logical rebuttals to be had by the pro gun crowd. That is very near the heart of the problem. THAT'S WHY, this assault weapons thing is going all the way up the food chain. The gun crowd has had umpteen years to overturn ONE gun law in a state, using logical common sense, and just like with health care - they ain't done it!

You may SAY that there is no logic, but the law does not agree with you, nor do any of the millions of people who want something done about gun violence in this country. And the gun crowd is going to have to face it or get small in their holes, one 'er the other.
Click to expand...

Wow.. but you might want to put down the crack pipe.

There is plenty of logical rebuttal by the pro gun crowd.

Lets see.. we already had a assault weapons ban.. and no real change in crime rates and no change when we let it expire
Mexico has extreme gun control.. and yet a huge number of violent crimes
Criminals that are willing to break the law to murder children at school.. are not going to be deterred by a background check
We have complete bans on such drugs as marijuana and yet have not stopped nor hardly slowed any access to these drugs ACCEPT FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO USE THEM FOR LEGITIMATE HEALTH REASONS.

The UK had gun control and their murder rate went UP until they added tons more police.

The logical rebuttals go on and on and on.

Yes.. in isolated areas of the country.. where rampant liberals sway people with emotion.. then there are gun control laws that have a difficult time being overturned.. and the process of educating people with logic rather than emotion takes time. Look at how long it took for the Heller decision. Heller lost in the District Court.. but won in the Court of appeals and Supreme court.

Just because a law is never overturned by the Supreme court doesn't mean that its constitutional or even that the people agree with it. The decision that the internment of Japanese Citizens was constitutional has never been overturned.. and it still stands. Yet I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that constitutional scholars en mass would claim that the internment of Japanese citizens without due process was constitutional. In fact.. the US government gave reparations to the families that were interned.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
an AR-15 is lightweight, intermediate cartridge, magazine-fed, semiautomatic rifle ... and why people think they need them is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Okay, thank you, I guess. I have no idea what that even means, but I was wondering if they are some kind of assault weapon or whatever? Is this some kind of gun that kills a whole bunch of people in these mass shootings? Is that why it is banned?
 
haymarket said:
You were done the first time you replied to me parroting this nonsense from an NRA website.

As to my zero standing - yeah - I am NOT one of the good old boy gang here who can be counted on for their Amen Corner. Good thing that does not prohibit me as a citizen for voicing an opinion.

yeah ......... no way it could be they just see things different than the NRA over an issue of public policy that divides America. :doh:roll::shock:
Click to expand...

I guess reading is pretty hard for some justices then.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Okay, thank you, I guess. I have no idea what that even means, but I was wondering if they are some kind of assault weapon or whatever? Is this some kind of gun that kills a whole bunch of people in these mass shootings? Is that why it is banned?
Click to expand...

An AR-15 can, I guess, be classified as an "assault weapon" (by the way, it's hilarious that you have no understanding of weaponry but use the ambiguous, political term "assault weapon" in such a manner).

To explicate on thrilla's rather clear post.

It has a detachable magazine (you know those things on the bottom of a rifle/carbine that are curved and house the bullets?)

It uses a bullet that is not a full sized rifle bullet (like something you'd see come out of an M1 garand), but is also bigger than a pistol bullet which is employed in submachine guns and pistols.

Semi automatic basically boils down to one pull of the trigger = one bullet going down range

EDIT

I'll add pictures too to make it nice and clear to you :)

This is an AR 15 rsz_ar15_a3_tactical_carbine_pic1.jpg

This is an AR 15 detachable magazine p_078000107_1.jpg

This is an intermediate cartridge (.223 remington used in the AR 15) rsz_223pct2077.jpg
 
Last edited:
Alyssa T. said:
What is an AR-15 and why do people think they need one?
Click to expand...

An AR-15 is a rifle following the design of the Armalite Rifle that was first built in 1959.

Armalite then sold the patent to colt.

Now there are multiple makers of the Armalite type rifle.

They are a semi automatic rifle.. so every time you pull the trigger a round fires. As opposed to a fully automatic firearm in which you pull the trigger once and it fires until the trigger is released (such are legal but require special permits and are restricted to guns built before a time line (I think 1986)

The advantages of the rifle are that they are quite accurate. Reliable. Lightweight (relatively). Can be modified easily with different stocks, optics, and other options.

Being semi automatic.. they have less recoil than other firearms (since some of the energy is bled off to cycle the weapon).

They are used in specific competitions in the US, like 3-gun. they are used for self defense.. and they are used for hunting.

Despite media propaganda.. rifles such as the AR-15 (which the media call "assault weapons" erroneously) are rarely used in crime.

How often are assault weapons used in crime?
Rarely. FBI data shows that in 2011, 6,220 murders were committed with handguns, compared with 323 committed with rifles — only some of which were assault rifles.
Click to expand...

hope this helps
 
Thank you. I used that term because it was in the OP, and also because we hear so much about banning assault weapons. Sorry if that is the wrong term, but it looks like you aren't sure if it is or not also. Pictures might help.

Still, I don't understand the need for one. Does it do something better than other rifles? Hunting?
 
Alyssa T. said:
Okay, thank you, I guess. I have no idea what that even means, but I was wondering if they are some kind of assault weapon or whatever? Is this some kind of gun that kills a whole bunch of people in these mass shootings? Is that why it is banned?
Click to expand...

They are not banned in the US. In fact millions are sold every year in the states. My son uses one in competition.
 
jaeger19 said:
An AR-15 is a rifle following the design of the Armalite Rifle that was first built in 1959.

Armalite then sold the patent to colt.

Now there are multiple makers of the Armalite type rifle.

They are a semi automatic rifle.. so every time you pull the trigger a round fires. As opposed to a fully automatic firearm in which you pull the trigger once and it fires until the trigger is released (such are legal but require special permits and are restricted to guns built before a time line (I think 1986)

The advantages of the rifle are that they are quite accurate. Reliable. Lightweight (relatively). Can be modified easily with different stocks, optics, and other options.

Being semi automatic.. they have less recoil than other firearms (since some of the energy is bled off to cycle the weapon).

They are used in specific competitions in the US, like 3-gun. they are used for self defense.. and they are used for hunting.

Despite media propaganda.. rifles such as the AR-15 (which the media call "assault weapons" erroneously) are rarely used in crime.



hope this helps
Click to expand...

Okay, thank you. My last post was before I saw this one from you. It does explain it a bit more.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Thank you. I used that term because it was in the OP, and also because we hear so much about banning assault weapons. Sorry if that is the wrong term, but it looks like you aren't sure if it is or not also. Pictures might help.

Still, I don't understand the need for one. Does it do something better than other rifles? Hunting?
Click to expand...

As explained they are used for specific competitions.
They are used for hunting
They are used for self defense and general plinking.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Okay, thank you. My last post was before I saw this one from you. It does explain it a bit more.
Click to expand...

No worries. I wish more people would try to educate themselves about firearms.

I used to go to school with a lot of 'very liberal" people that were dead set against firearms.. and had no experience with them.

After doing some shooting at the range and education.. the vast majority.. in fact all of them I believe.. changed their view on firearms from negative to positive.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Thank you. I used that term because it was in the OP, and also because we hear so much about banning assault weapons. Sorry if that is the wrong term, but it looks like you aren't sure if it is or not also. Pictures might help.

Still, I don't understand the need for one. Does it do something better than other rifles? Hunting?
Click to expand...

Hunting is a tricky subject and it really comes down to what exactly it is that you are hunting. For example, you're not going to pick up an AR 15 to try and down birds, rather, you're going to use a shotgun.

Also, AR 15s are perfect for self defense from home invasions and are also perfect when it comes to protecting private property during times of crises or high crime (Ferguson riots, LA riots, places with unusually high amounts of crime, etc.), they SUCK when it comes to carrying it around in public (if you ever see someone "open carry" an AR 15, it's moreso a political point than a practical point) because they're cumbersome to work with.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Hunting is a tricky subject and it really comes down to what exactly it is that you are hunting. For example, you're not going to pick up an AR 15 to try and down birds, rather, you're going to use a shotgun.

Also, AR 15s are perfect for self defense from home invasions and are also perfect when it comes to protecting private property during times of crises or high crime (Ferguson riots, LA riots, places with unusually high amounts of crime, etc.), they SUCK when it comes to carrying it around in public (if you ever see someone "open carry" an AR 15, it's moreso a political point than a practical point) because they're cumbersome to work with.
Click to expand...

Okay. In this case, with a ban, and no more Ar15s, aren't there still other guns that can be used for these things? This is why I was asking why people need them, in terms of a ban like in the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom