• 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:
One state should not be able to trample on another state's freedoms.

I think you'll agree that a gun free zone that is not enforced is less effective. Without metal detectors and armed guards, a set of "gun free zone" signs may not be effective.

Crossing state borders in the continental US does not necessarily result in a search for contraband.

Let's say Billy is prohibited from buying a gun in California because he's disqualified by state law. If Billy can just drive into Nevada, legally buy a gun in Nevada, and drive back into California, you have a circumstance where Nevada is complicit in circumventing California law, and that's an interstate issue.
Click to expand...

that's idiotic. california can punish him for having a gun. what if Ohio bans abortion and suzy gets knocked up in Ohio and drives to Michigan and has an abortion. IS that violating Ohio's law?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
well I certainly don't believe the commerce clause was intended or written to allow say social security.
Click to expand...

I think it's strange that we have so much power contingent on the commerce clause and so little on the general welfare clause but i suspect that each incremental step along the way made sense at the time.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
I think it's strange that we have so much power contingent on the commerce clause and so little on the general welfare clause but i suspect that each incremental step along the way made sense at the time.
Click to expand...

statists think that way
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
that's idiotic. california can punish him for having a gun. what if Ohio bans abortion and suzy gets knocked up in Ohio and drives to Michigan and has an abortion. IS that violating Ohio's law?
Click to expand...

Does she bring what is illegal (the performance of the abortion) back with her ? No, so it's not a violation.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Does she bring what is illegal (the performance of the abortion) back with her ? No, so it's not a violation.
Click to expand...

and if you take a banned gun into say Michigan, Michigan laws are there to punish that.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
how is that commerce AMONG THE STATES. you think the commerce clause allows the federal government control over just about anything
Click to expand...

Voting booths are made in one state and shipped to another, or at least the parts used to make them are so apparently the commerce clause was intended so that the Federal government can dictate which citizens are allowed to vote.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
and if you take a banned gun into say Michigan, Michigan laws are there to punish that.
Click to expand...

And yet Michigan laws that seek to enforce civilian prohibition can be undermined by neighboring states behaviors. That's why it's interstate.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
And yet Michigan laws that seek to enforce civilian prohibition can be undermined by neighboring states behaviors. That's why it's interstate.
Click to expand...

so what-the federal government isn't supposed to play favorites. its like saying since State A bans sodomy or gay marriage, the federal government should prevent two gays from getting married in NY and moving back to ohio.

btw if the purpose of an abortion ban in say Ohio is to protect the life of an unborn but viable potential citizen of Ohio, shouldn't the federal government prohibit an Ohio citizen from going to another state to terminate that life?

you see we can play this silly game all night long but the fact is-gun ownership is a constitutional right and the commerce clause cannot PROPERLY be used to overturn the second amendment or to diminish its prohibition on the federal government
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
... the fact is-gun ownership is a constitutional right and the commerce clause cannot PROPERLY be used to overturn the second amendment or to diminish its prohibition on the federal government
Click to expand...

For that matter what would be the purpose of defining a right only to include a clause that was intended to circumvent the right that was defined? Or to enumerate powers only to include a clause that negates the purpose of limiting powers to an enumerated list? It is asinine.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

blaxshep said:
For that matter what would be the purpose of defining a right only to include a clause that was intended to circumvent the right that was defined? Or to enumerate powers only to include a clause that negates the purpose of limiting powers to an enumerated list? It is asinine.
Click to expand...

THE ONLY possible interpretation of the second that fits with the Constitution, the bill of rights and the entire beliefs of the founders is one that holds that the second amendment is a blanket prohibition on the federal government being able to restrict what arms private citizens own, possess, keep, bear etc
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
THE ONLY possible interpretation of the second that fits with the Constitution, the bill of rights and the entire beliefs of the founders is one that holds that the second amendment is a blanket prohibition on the federal government being able to restrict what arms private citizens own, possess, keep, bear etc
Click to expand...

Like I have always said it is an absolute.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
so what-the federal government isn't supposed to play favorites. its like saying since State A bans sodomy or gay marriage, the federal government should prevent two gays from getting married in NY and moving back to ohio.
Click to expand...

Equal protection at the federal level would be violated by disparate legal treatment across gender at the state level.

TurtleDude said:
btw if the purpose of an abortion ban in say Ohio is to protect the life of an unborn but viable potential citizen of Ohio, shouldn't the federal government prohibit an Ohio citizen from going to another state to terminate that life?
Click to expand...

No. The parallel of that would be a US citizen traveling to another sovereignty to, say, fire a rocket launcher, and then returning home. Of course, as long as laws are not violated as a result, it is not a legal issue.

TurtleDude said:
you see we can play this silly game all night long but the fact is-gun ownership is a constitutional right and the commerce clause cannot PROPERLY be used to overturn the second amendment or to diminish its prohibition on the federal government
Click to expand...

Perhaps you think this is a silly game, i do not. You are stating your opinion, and my opinion differs.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Equal protection at the federal level would be violated by disparate legal treatment across gender at the state level.



No. The parallel of that would be a US citizen traveling to another sovereignty to, say, fire a rocket launcher, and then returning home. Of course, as long as laws are not violated as a result, it is not a legal issue.



Perhaps you think this is a silly game, i do not. You are stating your opinion, and my opinion differs.
Click to expand...

yep I support the second amendment as written, and you being a gun banner pretend that the second amendment allows all sorts of gun bans and that the commerce clause was properly mutated to empower such bans or restrictions
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
yep I support the second amendment as written, and you being a gun banner pretend that the second amendment allows all sorts of gun bans and that the commerce clause was properly mutated to empower such bans or restrictions
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with the rulings and opinions of the justices on the supreme court.

You're departing from that and then declaring that i'm wrong without a sound argument of your own.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
I'm in agreement with the rulings and opinions of the justices on the supreme court.

You're departing from that and then declaring that i'm wrong without a sound argument of your own.
Click to expand...

so lets look at Heller

Heller holds that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms that is unconnected to service in a militia. (so far so good)

it also states that firearms that are both in common use (its unclear by who) and that are not unusually dangerous, are protected.

can you read that decision as allowing a ban on say an AR 15 or other magazine fed semi auto intermediate cartridge carbine?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Do you think a ban on a grenade launcher is unconstitutional ?
Click to expand...

Like an M79 or 203? Actually, Yes. The police have them, I am better trained and experienced than any of them, period, so why should I not be able to have one if I want to pay for them. Oh and I don't want or need one, I am not at war, yet.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
so lets look at Heller

Heller holds that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms that is unconnected to service in a militia. (so far so good)

it also states that firearms that are both in common use (its unclear by who) and that are not unusually dangerous, are protected.

can you read that decision as allowing a ban on say an AR 15 or other magazine fed semi auto intermediate cartridge carbine?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, i wouldn't say that it answers the question of whether or not a federal AR15 ban would be considered constitutional.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Casper said:
Like an M79 or 203? Actually, Yes. The police have them, I am better trained and experienced than any of them, period, so why should I not be able to have one if I want to pay for them. Oh and I don't want or need one, I am not at war, yet.
Click to expand...

Well, i don't think the police should have them.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Not necessarily, i wouldn't say that it answers the question of whether or not a federal AR15 ban would be considered constitutional.
Click to expand...

only if someone is so dishonest that they can claim that a semi auto rifle is both uncommon and unusually dangerous

and since our own government has sold a million or so such type rifles to civilians that's gonna be an argument that fails
 
TheGoverness said:
Thing is, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to properly handle an AR-15. That's why I'd rather have a pistol.
Click to expand...

I had a lot of smaller female troops that put most of my guys to shame with the M-16. One was about 100 pounds. She was my go to guy when I needed something done right.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Absentglare said:
Not necessarily, i wouldn't say that it answers the question of whether or not a federal AR15 ban would be considered constitutional.
Click to expand...

Is it an arm. Yes. The second says the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There can be no other conclusion, banning the AR15 is 100% unconstitutional. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom