• 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..."

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...

If you pass a background check and the training is qualifying, then why not ?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
The statement wasn't "the most technologically advanced arms" it was "weapons" :
Click to expand...
The 2nd Amendment was not written to guarantee the rights of armies or military bodies. The 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the rights of CITIZENS. The militia did not carry slings and stones and clubs...they carried the most advanced weapons of the day. Your continued idiotic need to try to make a basic and direct argument into your foray into the ridiculous should be embarrassing to you. Its not unlike some of the others past attempts to make the BoR into a protection for state governments. I swear...its like you guys take turns drawing straws and the 'winner' gets to take the podium and offer a string of foolish arguments. Do you think it somehow 'helps' your cause? Can you even DEFINE your cause?

Would you care to revise your statement? If AR 15s were available to the militia during the days of the revolution, would the founding fathers have carried AR15s? Or would they have carried single shot muskets. Maybe a good old fashioned blunderbuss?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

VanceMack said:
The 2nd Amendment was not written to guarantee the rights of armies or military bodies. The 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the rights of CITIZENS. The militia did not carry slings and stones and clubs...they carried the most advanced weapons of the day. Your continued idiotic need to try to make a basic and direct argument into your foray into the ridiculous should be embarrassing to you. Its not unlike some of the others past attempts to make the BoR into a protection for state governments. I swear...its like you guys take turns drawing straws and the 'winner' gets to take the podium and offer a string of foolish arguments. Do you think it somehow 'helps' your cause? Can you even DEFINE your cause?

Would you care to revise your statement? If AR 15s were available to the militia during the days of the revolution, would the founding fathers have carried AR15s? Or would they have carried single shot muskets. Maybe a good old fashioned blunderbuss?
Click to expand...

That's a lot of verbiage but not much content. Perhaps you should consider letting yourself calm down.

Now, it sounds like you're revising your statement from "weapons" to "small arms" which is fine.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
That's a lot of verbiage but not much content. Perhaps you should consider letting yourself calm down.

Now, it sounds like you're revising your statement from "weapons" to "small arms" which is fine.
Click to expand...
No revision and Im perfectly calm and you didnt answer the question. Would you care to revise your statement? If AR 15s were available to the militia during the days of the revolution, would the founding fathers have carried AR15s? Or would they have carried single shot muskets. Maybe a good old fashioned blunderbuss?
 
"You don't need an AR15..."

VanceMack said:
No revision and Im perfectly calm and you didnt answer the question. Would you care to revise your statement? If AR 15s were available to the militia during the days of the revolution, would the founding fathers have carried AR15s? Or would they have carried single shot muskets. Maybe a good old fashioned blunderbuss?
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical requires a completely different narrative of history, so i consider it incomprehensible.

If the idea is that the second amendment secures the right of the people to overthrow the government, then why don't the people get tanks, fighter jets, ordinance, and nuclear weapons ? It would hardly be a fair fight if a bunch of citizens with AR15s went up against the US military.

Now, if YOU can answer THAT question, then perhaps you can elaborate on your "most technically advanced weapons" of the time definition so as to make it somewhat coherent.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Your hypothetical requires a completely different narrative of history, so i consider it incomprehensible.

If the idea is that the second amendment secures the right of the people to overthrow the government, then why don't the people get tanks, fighter jets, ordinance, and nuclear weapons ? It would hardly be a fair fight if a bunch of citizens with AR15s went up against the US military.

Now, if YOU can answer THAT question, then perhaps you can elaborate on your "most technically advanced weapons" of the time definition so as to make it somewhat coherent.
Click to expand...
It wasnt MY hypothetical, it was yours. You made the foolish claim that they wouldnt have needed an AR15. Thats just dumb. If in 20 years we develop personal defense or combat arms lasers, people will and should carry them and if THOSE would have been the combat arms of the day you can bet your ass the founding fathers would have carried them. You made a stupid statement. Thats all. Its funny that you cant even admit it.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

VanceMack said:
It wasnt MY hypothetical, it was yours. You made the foolish claim that they wouldnt have needed an AR15. Thats just dumb. If in 20 years we develop personal defense or combat arms lasers, people will and should carry them and if THOSE would have been the combat arms of the day you can bet your ass the founding fathers would have carried them. You made a stupid statement. Thats all. Its funny that you cant even admit it.
Click to expand...

The claim was made that people have a right to an AR15. I explained that they never had such a right.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
The claim was made that people have a right to an AR15. I explained that they never had such a right.
Click to expand...

Actually you are right, an AR-15 is an arm and the 2nd amendment forbids the government from preventing the people from owning arms. So the people never had a right to own one, the government has no power not to allow them to own one.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
The claim was made that people have a right to an AR15. I explained that they never had such a right.
Click to expand...

and that shows you are completely wrong. You believe that we only can do what the federal government says we can do, when in reality, we are able to do anything we want UNLESS the federal government was given the power in the constitution, or an amendment to interfere with that. That's the main difference between those whose default position is freedom vs people like you who thinks we are subjects and need the government's permission to do anything
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
and that shows you are completely wrong. You believe that we only can do what the federal government says we can do, when in reality, we are able to do anything we want UNLESS the federal government was given the power in the constitution, or an amendment to interfere with that. That's the main difference between those whose default position is freedom vs people like you who thinks we are subjects and need the government's permission to do anything
Click to expand...

To a liberal there is no such thing as a bill of rights, it is a bill of privileges.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

blaxshep said:
To a liberal there is no such thing as a bill of rights, it is a bill of privileges.
Click to expand...

the government is the mother goddess, the wellspring of all that is good, to them
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
The claim was made that people have a right to an AR15. I explained that they never had such a right.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely wrong...unless you somehow can prove that an AR15 is not an armament. But thats not what made you look silly. What made you look silly is your claim that the founding fathers would not have had a need for an AR15. Knowing the history of the militia, the formation of combat troops that secured the freedoms of this country and that predicated the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, your comment is beyond goofy.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

VanceMack said:
You are absolutely wrong...unless you somehow can prove that an AR15 is not an armament. But thats not what made you look silly. What made you look silly is your claim that the founding fathers would not have had a need for an AR15. Knowing the history of the militia, the formation of combat troops that secured the freedoms of this country and that predicated the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, your comment is beyond goofy.
Click to expand...

He's wrong on every possible angle concerning the second amendment

first we have the Heller decision.

1) are AR 15s in Common use? of course they are-they have been widely available for 50 years and in the last ten years, have been the most popular centerfire rifle in the USA

2) are they "unusually dangerous"? of course not-less than 1% of all homicides use AR 15 or similar rifles. They are commonly issued to civilian police departments


UNDER MILLER-

are they weapons useful for the militia? of course they are-they are the civilian legal version of the M16 rifle which is the standard issue of our national guard. (which is why M16s should be legal as well)

under the second amendment, arms mean weapons that private citizens would normally keep and bear. not cannons, not ballistic missiles, not 105 smoothbore artillery pieces and not a 12 pound howitzer.


so what we are dealing with is a gun banner who thinks that the second amendment is somehow limited to whatever firearms his Democrat masters think it would be too politically dangerous to ban
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
and that shows you are completely wrong. You believe that we only can do what the federal government says we can do, when in reality, we are able to do anything we want UNLESS the federal government was given the power in the constitution, or an amendment to interfere with that. That's the main difference between those whose default position is freedom vs people like you who thinks we are subjects and need the government's permission to do anything
Click to expand...

That in no way addresses what i said. Did you quote the wrong post ?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

blaxshep said:
To a liberal there is no such thing as a bill of rights, it is a bill of privileges.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
the government is the mother goddess, the wellspring of all that is good, to them
Click to expand...

Maybe you should be more concerned with your own positions on this issue and less concerned with patting one another on the back for making the same strawman argument.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

VanceMack said:
You are absolutely wrong...unless you somehow can prove that an AR15 is not an armament. But thats not what made you look silly. What made you look silly is your claim that the founding fathers would not have had a need for an AR15. Knowing the history of the militia, the formation of combat troops that secured the freedoms of this country and that predicated the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, your comment is beyond goofy.
Click to expand...

Now your definition is "armament"- so show some honesty for once and answer a question: is a grenade launcher "armament" yes or no ?

Here let me help you with a dictionary, since you seem to have difficultly with the distinction between "small arms" and "weapons" :

Armament : military weapons and equipment.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
That in no way addresses what i said. Did you quote the wrong post ?
Click to expand...


you said this

Absentglare said:
The claim was made that people have a right to an AR15. I explained that they never had such a right.
Click to expand...


we always have the right, at a federal level-to own anything we want unless and until the government, though the exercise of constitutionally proper power, bans it

where did the federal government get that power?


why do we have the right to own handguns but not AR 15s

you're demonstrating you have no clue about the entire concept of a constitutional republic or the concept of a government limited to enumerated rights
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Maybe you should be more concerned with your own positions on this issue and less concerned with patting one another on the back for making the same strawman argument.
Click to expand...

my views are consistent with the language of the constitution, the language of the bill of rights, the views of the founders and the Heller decision
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Maybe you should be more concerned with your own positions on this issue and less concerned with patting one another on the back for making the same strawman argument.
Click to expand...

You are the one with a disconnect, we have posted where you went wrong. You can't debate our point so you post this?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Now your definition is "armament"- so show some honesty for once and answer a question: is a grenade launcher "armament" yes or no ?

Here let me help you with a dictionary, since you seem to have difficultly with the distinction between "small arms" and "weapons" :

Armament : military weapons and equipment.
Click to expand...
Do ground soldiers use automatic weapons and even grenade launchers? Sure...I have no problem with that. Law abiding citizens dont scare me. Criminals dont follow the laws.

You DO understand the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the individual citizens right to keep and bear MILITARY GRADE weapons...correct? I mean...I assume you actually HAVE read the amendment.
 
"You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
you said this




we always have the right, at a federal level-to own anything we want unless and until the government, though the exercise of constitutionally proper power, bans it

where did the federal government get that power?


why do we have the right to own handguns but not AR 15s

you're demonstrating you have no clue about the entire concept of a constitutional republic or the concept of a government limited to enumerated rights
Click to expand...

I fight for freedom all the time. All of my fighting is for freedom. I'm just not one of those myopic few who think the word "freedom" only applies to myself.

I think drugs should be legalized. I think the government should not generally be spying on its citizens. I think poor Americans need more resources so that they can have more freedom.

I'm just not singularly concerned with what weapons are readily available for prospective murderers and enthusiasts alike. I also value, you know, the freedom to not be shot by a prospective murderer.

But then again the topic isn't me is it ????
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

VanceMack said:
Do ground soldiers use automatic weapons and even grenade launchers? Sure...I have no problem with that. Law abiding citizens dont scare me. Criminals dont follow the laws.

You DO understand the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the individual citizens right to keep and bear MILITARY GRADE weapons...correct? I mean...I assume you actually HAVE read the amendment.
Click to expand...

I believe he is like most gun grabbers, he has read it but disagrees with it so then makes every attempt to find a re-interpretation to circumvent it's meaning. This same thing goes on even with constitutional scholars and the SC. They all know damn well exactly what the 2nd means. There is no argument on it's interpretation, they just hate guns and the right to own them so what they disagree on is what is the best re-interpretation of the 2nd to effectively limit the right and place it under government control.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
I also value, you know, the freedom to not be shot by a prospective murderer.
Click to expand...

Then you should value the right of self defense which the 2nd provides. What I really don't get, and I mentioned this before, why do you go after guns like the AR-15 which is used on an incredibly small number of homicides rather than the common hand gun which is used in almost every homicide involving a gun? The only reason I can think of is its a low hanging scary looking fruit that can be used to set precedence for incrementalism.
 
Last edited:
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
I fight for freedom all the time. All of my fighting is for freedom. I'm just not one of those myopic few who think the word "freedom" only applies to myself.

I think drugs should be legalized. I think the government should not generally be spying on its citizens. I think poor Americans need more resources so that they can have more freedom.

I'm just not singularly concerned with what weapons are readily available for prospective murderers and enthusiasts alike. I also value, you know, the freedom to not be shot by a prospective murderer.

But then again the topic isn't me is it ????
Click to expand...

1) -drugs should be legalized: the mutation of the commerce clause perpetrated by FDR is what caused the federal war on drugs

2) Yep, less government spying-yet you want more since you want registration of firearms and mandatory training (requires records) of gun owners

3) redistribution of income is not freedom.

4) its a capital crime for someone to shoot me In Ohio. Passing laws that disarm people like me in the hope it will disarm someone willing to commit capital murder is a stupid solution that is either based on ignorance or dishonesty
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

blaxshep said:
Then you should value the right of self defense which the 2nd provides. What I really don't get, and I mentioned this before, why do you go after guns like the AR-15 which is used on an incredibly small number of homicides rather than the common hand gun which is used in almost every homicide involving a gun? The only reason I can think of is its a low hanging scary looking fruit that can be used to set precedence for incrementalism.
Click to expand...

I'm not going after the AR15, what i am doing is explaining why banning the AR15 could still be constitutional: for the same reason that the ban on the M16 is constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom