"You don't need an AR15..." (1 Viewer)

[Absentglare]

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

lots of citizens have these attitudes

1) the federal government can do anything it wants as long as the court has not stopped it

2) a good government has the power to do A B and C and that alone is sufficient for the government to do A B and C

3) Rights, we don't need no stinkin rights!!

1) is generally true. We tortured people. We held people without trial. We ignored due process to harvest phone metadata. We already do whatever we want to infringe on rights. Don't you care about any right other than the right to bear arms ?

2) is either meaningless or incomprehensible.

3) is your ridiculously stupid strawman.

 

[Casper]

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

The answer is obviously that the gun control restrictions were immensely successful, the same as with machine guns.

You are living in an alternative universe if you believe that nonsense.

 

[Absentglare]

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

do you understand how disgustingly statist that tripe is? You appear to have absolutely no love for individual rights and you suggest that people exist to serve the government.

You're just using rhetoric and speculation. I care a great deal about individuals, like those 322 people who had all their rights rescinded by the bullets projected by firearms.

 

[Absentglare]

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

uh that is because there is no federal ban on an AR 15

More specifically, there never has been a federal ban on an AR15

 

[humbolt]

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

I can assure you that i am in no way, shape, or form desperate here.

Well then you should be able to answer the question posed by me and others. What distinguishes the AR from other semi-automatic rifles? You claim it's a special case, so tell me what's so special about the AR.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

More specifically, there never has been a federal ban on an AR15

you are wrong-there was a ban on the AR 15 as it was being sold in 1994. the makers merely changed some cosmetic features and began reselling it again. I doubt that law could survive the courts now under Heller at a federal level

 

[Absentglare]

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

this is yet more proof that you really should have learned about this subject before slaking your desires to try to contradict us big bad conservatives and libertarians who constantly bash the idiocy of Democrat Bannerrhoid politicians and their factually bereft followers in the public.

do you realize what a silly bit of diversion you have posted

do you not understand that we have a federal government of enumerated and limited powers

and do you also not recognize that the reason why we have a government that has vastly expanded beyond all reasonable boundaries is because people like you don't care as long as the government does stuff you like, that alone makes their actions "constitutional"

You asked how congress could accomplish such a feat, and i addressed your question directly.

Perhaps you should articulate your own argument instead of trying to convince me to make your argument for you.

 

[TheGoverness]

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

Well then you should be able to answer the question posed by me and others. What distinguishes the AR from other semi-automatic rifles? You claim it's a special case, so tell me what's so special about the AR.

Maybe because it looks cool? :2razz:

 

[TurtleDude]

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

You asked how congress could accomplish such a feat, and i addressed your question directly.

Perhaps you should articulate your own argument instead of trying to convince me to make your argument for you.

where does the federal government find such power properly in the Article One Section 8

 

[Absentglare]

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

so you don't care about the constitution

I figured that out a while back

I care about the people, not some sensationalized, nationalist nonsense argument that is myopically focused on firearms at the expense of everything else.

 

[Absentglare]

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

You are living in an alternative universe if you believe that nonsense.

What an ironic response.

These dangerous and unusual firearms that are restricted or banned are not frequently used by criminals.

And you think this has nothing to do with their status as restricted or banned why ? Do you think the accessibility of a resource has no relationship to its usage ?

 

[Absentglare]

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

Well then you should be able to answer the question posed by me and others. What distinguishes the AR from other semi-automatic rifles? You claim it's a special case, so tell me what's so special about the AR.

Again, i'm not arguing in favor of banning the AR15, i'm simply arguing that, if it were banned, that would not completely unravel the second amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

I care about the people, not some sensationalized, nationalist nonsense argument that is myopically focused on firearms at the expense of everything else.

translation-rights don't matter but what big government does is OK with you

and why do you keep denying you are a gun banner-everything you have said is consistent with the mindset of those who want to ban firearms

 

[Absentglare]

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

you are wrong-there was a ban on the AR 15 as it was being sold in 1994. the makers merely changed some cosmetic features and began reselling it again. I doubt that law could survive the courts now under Heller at a federal level

Then the AR15, itself, was not actually banned. Thank you for debunking your own argument, though.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Again, i'm not arguing in favor of banning the AR15, i'm simply arguing that, if it were banned, that would not completely unravel the second amendment.

OK so now you believe something is constitutional as long as it doesn't COMPLETELY UNRAVEL an amendment in the Bill of rights

so getting rid of say a couple religions wouldn't unravel the first? or some intrusions on our rights of privacy are OK

after all its to keep us safe!!

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Then the AR15, itself, was not actually banned. Thank you for debunking your own argument, though.

you're trying to twist words to protect your own inane argument. The bannerrhoids banned the AR 15 by name but because that ban was based on certain features, the makers were able to remove the features, rename the rifles and sell them.

 

[Absentglare]

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

where does the federal government find such power properly in the Article One Section 8

Non sequitur. I didn't make that argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Non sequitur. I didn't make that argument.

Its a question to you-are you able to answer it?

 

[Absentglare]

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

translation-rights don't matter but what big government does is OK with you

and why do you keep denying you are a gun banner-everything you have said is consistent with the mindset of those who want to ban firearms

If you feel the need to transform my words into your strawman argument in order to "rebut" it, my point is already made.

 

[Casper]

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

translation-rights don't matter but what big government does is OK with you

and why do you keep denying you are a gun banner-everything you have said is consistent with the mindset of those who want to ban firearms

It is what the dishonest do. Just "I am not against something but if they ban it I have no issue with it" nonsense, you either support a Right or you do not. Wasting your time, they had their say and it has been replied to over and over, nothing is going to change their POV.

 

[Absentglare]

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

OK so now you believe something is constitutional as long as it doesn't COMPLETELY UNRAVEL an amendment in the Bill of rights

so getting rid of say a couple religions wouldn't unravel the first? or some intrusions on our rights of privacy are OK

after all its to keep us safe!!

Not at all, that wasn't what i said. I will no longer address your lies.

 

[Absentglare]

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

you're trying to twist words to protect your own inane argument. The bannerrhoids banned the AR 15 by name but because that ban was based on certain features, the makers were able to remove the features, rename the rifles and sell them.

No, you are trying to twist my words around because my argument is sound.

Guns Like The AR-15 Were Never Fully Banned | FiveThirtyEight

 

[Absentglare]

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

Its a question to you-are you able to answer it?

It is irrelevant.

 

[humbolt]

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

Maybe because it looks cool? :2razz:

That would be it. Put a walnut stock on it, remove the rails and all that stuff, give it a five round magazine, and it sorta looks like a neutered 30.06 minus the firepower.

 

[humbolt]

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

Again, i'm not arguing in favor of banning the AR15, i'm simply arguing that, if it were banned, that would not completely unravel the second amendment.

So you're just fooling around, 'cause that sure sounds exactly like what you've been saying.