• 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!

"You don't need an AR15..."

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
No, it doesn't.

You cannot buy a new machine gun. You must think that that violates the constitution if you apply that logic. Is that true ?
Click to expand...

yes that clearly violates the second and the tenth amendment. That Hughes amendment was passed purely out of spite by butt hurt democrats and there is strong evidence it was not even properly passed by a voice vote. Can you explain why the second amendment cease operating at a certain number of rounds in a weapon or how fast it fires?

the only evidence in favor of the hughes amendment was "nobody can be against banning machine guns"

if civilian police use them for self defense, you cannot make a credible argument in favor of preventing other civilians from possessing them

BTW there are several hundred thousand legally owned machine guns in private hands-ZERO crime
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
That wasn't what i was suggesting, don't make such a ridiculous equivocation. Right now, private citizens cannot buy an M16. I'm not demanding that they should only be able to buy muskets.
Click to expand...

that's unconstitutional, the standard issue weapon of the militia is clearly protected
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
That wasn't what i was suggesting, don't make such a ridiculous equivocation. Right now, private citizens cannot buy an M16. I'm not demanding that they should only be able to buy muskets.
Click to expand...

BTW I can buy an M16. just not one made after May 19, 1986. why don't you justify that ban. Do you understand that there have been no cases of legal machine guns owned by private citizens being used in violent crime in decades?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
yes that clearly violates the second and the tenth amendment. That Hughes amendment was passed purely out of spite by butt hurt democrats and there is strong evidence it was not even properly passed by a voice vote. Can you explain why the second amendment cease operating at a certain number of rounds in a weapon or how fast it fires?

the only evidence in favor of the hughes amendment was "nobody can be against banning machine guns"

if civilian police use them for self defense, you cannot make a credible argument in favor of preventing other civilians from possessing them

BTW there are several hundred thousand legally owned machine guns in private hands-ZERO crime
Click to expand...

Then your theory is self-consistent but it is not consistent with years of legal reality.

TurtleDude said:
that's unconstitutional, the standard issue weapon of the militia is clearly protected
Click to expand...

It is still protected. Like i said, the federal government can influence the policy without strictly mandating it.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
BTW I can buy an M16. just not one made after May 19, 1986. why don't you justify that ban. Do you understand that there have been no cases of legal machine guns owned by private citizens being used in violent crime in decades?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you think banning guns is a successful strategy.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Then your theory is self-consistent but it is not consistent with years of legal reality.



It is still protected. Like i said, the federal government can influence the policy without strictly mandating it.
Click to expand...


you are lying again. if it was protected, I could buy one tomorrow legally as easily as as shotgun or a target 22. you are clearly ignorant of what the second amendment means

tell me how the second amendment is intact after the Hughes Amendment
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
It sounds like you think banning guns is a successful strategy.
Click to expand...

you really need to work on understanding what people write.

why did Democrats push that ban if there was no crime being committed with those weapons for the 50 years before the ban?


Do you actually understand the law?

if so, defend it
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
You're moving the goalposts to a completely different field.

You were arguing that the second amendment gives us access to the most technologically advanced weapons of our time.

Now, you're incoherently bringing up "small arms" that can be "carried" as though you were talking about it the whole time. Fine, if you want to LIE to save face, then tell me, is a grenade launcher a small arm that can be carried ?
Click to expand...
No...I responded to your ridiculous assertion that the Founding Fathers didnt 'need' AR 15s. Start there.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
you are lying again. if it was protected, I could buy one tomorrow legally as easily as as shotgun or a target 22. you are clearly ignorant of what the second amendment means

tell me how the second amendment is intact after the Hughes Amendment
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
you really need to work on understanding what people write.

why did Democrats push that ban if there was no crime being committed with those weapons for the 50 years before the ban?


Do you actually understand the law?

if so, defend it
Click to expand...

Hardly any laws require an example of a crime to be justified. Murder should be illegal whether there are zero or ten million murders.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Hardly any laws require an example of a crime to be justified. Murder should be illegal whether there are zero or ten million murders.
Click to expand...

so you think its ok to suddenly ban people from being able to buy these weapons made after a certain date even if there was no crime being committed with them?

that's the best argument you can come up with> we can ban stuff that people have done for 50 years without ANY problems.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
so you think its ok to suddenly ban people from being able to buy these weapons made after a certain date even if there was no crime being committed with them?

that's the best argument you can come up with> we can ban stuff that people have done for 50 years without ANY problems.
Click to expand...

The laws are subject to change and we often utilize grandfather clauses because we cherish freedom.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
The laws are subject to change and we often utilize grandfather clauses because we cherish freedom.
Click to expand...



But they haven't been changed, you know why? Because we cherish our freedom.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
The laws are subject to change and we often utilize grandfather clauses because we cherish freedom.
Click to expand...

I guess you are unwilling to choose either position

you don't want to look like you support a stupid law that was proposed to derail-out of spite-a pro gun bill but on the other hand, deep down you really don't believe that the second amendment has any degree of absolutism
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

EMNofSeattle said:
But they haven't been changed, you know why? Because we cherish our freedom.
Click to expand...

no one has been able to justify the hughes amendment which was proposed as a spiteful attempt to derail a bill that Bannerrhoid assholes knew they had lost on and which was not properly passed anyway
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Hardly any laws require an example of a crime to be justified. Murder should be illegal whether there are zero or ten million murders.
Click to expand...

Murder is a crime at common law, for many years many jurisdictions had no codified crime of murder because it was assumed illegal, because there's actually a victim when a murder is committed, as opposed to mere possession of an object, where no victim exists
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

EMNofSeattle said:
But they haven't been changed, you know why? Because we cherish our freedom.
Click to expand...

That's just a rhetorical point. The founders designed the government to be adaptive.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

EMNofSeattle said:
Murder is a crime at common law, for many years many jurisdictions had no codified crime of murder because it was assumed illegal, because there's actually a victim when a murder is committed, as opposed to mere possession of an object, where no victim exists
Click to expand...

Which would make sense if undergoing a background check or a certification course was equivalent to punishment for a crime.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
That's just a rhetorical point. The founders designed the government to be adaptive.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, they did not intend for the constitution itself to be adapted outside of the amendment process
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

EMNofSeattle said:
Yes and no, they did not intend for the constitution itself to be adapted outside of the amendment process
Click to expand...

I have yet to find an amendment that actually delegated any power to the federal government to override the second amendment. and to claim that "Congress shall have the power to regulate....Commerce among the states" is hard to read as saying "Congress shall have the power to ban or restrict private citizens, acting within their own sovereign states, from owning certain firearms
 
"You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
"Most technologically advanced weapons of the time" would include ordinance, classified fighter jets, armored tanks, electromagnetic pulse grenades, spy satellite technology, and a nuclear arsenal.

Sounds like an awful plan.
Click to expand...

None of which are arms. The founders intended us to be able to take up arms against an over reaching government and also against the other tyrants...criminals.

I often wonder how the founders would have handled gangs. If you think about it...gangs represent exactly the kind of group the founders would have opposed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
It sounds like you think banning guns is a successful strategy.
Click to expand...

The point is that the ban targets something that doesn't exist. And any automatic weapons in the hands of criminals come from places like the military or from Mexican drug cartels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Absentglare said:
Ah, but the police may take specific training to utilize a specific weapon.

But i actually agree with your overall point.
Click to expand...

And many civilians may have specific training on specific weapons. I have put thousands and thousands of rounds through an M4 in training. Does that mean I am should be able to own one
 
braindrain said:
And many civilians may have specific training on specific weapons. I have put thousands and thousands of rounds through an M4 in training. Does that mean I am should be able to own one
Click to expand...

many gun banners confuse this point. Police-due to their status and training (which is often poor, my then 16 year old son completely destroyed the top Police Olympics champions in a handgun speed shooting event) can not only possess and keep certain firearms, they have the legal authority to carry them on our streets and in areas other civilians cannot. (a cop can usually carry a weapon into a court room-most other civilians cannot). We are talking about other civilians merely being able to own something in their own homes and use them in designated areas

It is my view that the Heller test (firearms that are "in common use and are not unusually dangerous) include any firearm or firearm type that police departments have access to
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

blackjack50 said:
None of which are arms. The founders intended us to be able to take up arms against an over reaching government and also against the other tyrants...criminals.

I often wonder how the founders would have handled gangs. If you think about it...gangs represent exactly the kind of group the founders would have opposed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The statement wasn't "the most technologically advanced arms" it was "weapons" :

VanceMack said:
Wow.
Did the founding fathers fight for our nations independence using stones and clubs? Or did they use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Did their opponents use slings and crude swords? Or did THEY use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Was the 2nd Amendment written ONLY for 1780? Was the entire Bill of Rights intended ONLY for the protection of freedoms as they would apply in 1780? Do you sacrifice your rights to free speech if you dont use a quill pen, hand placed typeset, or speak from a box in the town square?
Click to expand...
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

blackjack50 said:
The point is that the ban targets something that doesn't exist. And any automatic weapons in the hands of criminals come from places like the military or from Mexican drug cartels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think they need to be banned. I think we should mandate certification for the purchase of certain classes of firearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom