• 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!

This is why we need more Scalias on the Supreme Court

jet57 said:
That's the only reason, no there's no necessity for it over anything else. It's a toy.
Click to expand...
I agree. And so what?

The AR15 is a basic hunting rifle styled to look like a military rifle, a product targeting military veterans.

As are many items, like many knives, the H2 sport utility vehicle, 'tac lights', and cargo pants.

So...so what?
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
That's the only reason, no there's no necessity for it over anything else. It's a toy.
Click to expand...

The what are the military and police doing with a toy?
 
jet57 said:
M16s are banned form regular public sale just like dynamite.


I still say a bunch of nuke goons and some halfway decent lawyers with access to money and some politicians who like to - play ball - can get nukes covered under the second amendment; should be snap:"Guy With Nuke Foils Armed Carjacking!"; it'll make great gun threads, ya'know, show the video and stuff. TD'll be real happy.

You use your AR as a toy, because that's what it is. It just looks reeeaaal cool, that's why you guys buy'em.


And you and yours always go on and on about big gummit comin to git owah guns- so - please; alright?
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is also the primary reason that you wish to ban them - they look like they could be "weapons of war". The idea that a rifle, shotgun or pistol becomes an "assault" weapon based on its looks (rather than its use) is lame. That same appearance logic could be used for restricting (banning?) the use of "sporty" or "performance" cars on public roadways - they certainly look like they could easily violate speed limits.
 
BlackBook said:
I agree. And so what?

The AR15 is a basic hunting rifle styled to look like a military rifle, a product targeting military veterans.

As are many items, like many knives, the H2 sport utility vehicle, 'tac lights', and cargo pants.

So...so what?
Click to expand...

So good, you agree that there's no compelling reason to own an AR; that's what I've been saying all along, so thanks for your honesty. If they get banned from sale, you won't miss them.

The AR IS a military rifle that doesn't include select fire, so it's a "civilian version" that looks and acts almost like the real thing so that's why people buy them and for no other reason. The trouble however comes when weapons like this are intentionally used against the public, in terrorist and mass shooting incidents that kill many more people than other weapons could in the same amount of time by amateur shooters. The fact is, these types of weapons in the public arena are mass shootings waiting to happen, and if they weren't there to choose from, then like guns for suicide, spontaneous action would be curtailed or some less reliable method (read weapon) would be considered.

I've shown over and over again that American gun control for public safety is a very American idea and is part and parcel with American history as ways that society protects itself from problem people with guns. So this paranoia over the issue is just irrational.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is also the primary reason that you wish to ban them - they look like they could be "weapons of war". The idea that a rifle, shotgun or pistol becomes an "assault" weapon based on its looks (rather than its use) is lame. That same appearance logic could be used for restricting (banning?) the use of "sporty" or "performance" cars on public roadways - they certainly look like they could easily violate speed limits.
Click to expand...

That part you bolded as a reason for banning couldn't be further from the truth if someone paid you say that it was. The trouble is they are weapons of war that have the capabilities of weapons of war except for select fire full auto and the incidents of mass shootings and a terrorist attack involving these things; with all the weapons purchased at American gun stores is the problem. YOU buy them because they look like weapons of war and there is no other reason for it.

So I'll say the same thing to you that I said to another poster: I've shown over and over again, and just recently too, that American gun control is a great part of American history and has always passed constitutional muster where such actions continue over challenges. Your visceral reactions to something that is as old as our country however, are brought on by marketers and lawyers and radical far right political agendas (also shown here) that have bastardized the second amendment and taken advantage of the like minded ignorant in this country.
 
jet57 said:
I've shown over and over again that American gun control for public safety is a very American idea and is part and parcel with American history as ways that society protects itself from problem people with guns. So this paranoia over the issue is just irrational.
Click to expand...

What public safety is provided by not allowing the sale of AR-15s?
 
jet57 said:
That part you bolded as a reason for banning couldn't be further from the truth if someone paid you say that it was. The trouble is they are weapons of war that have the capabilities of weapons of war except for select fire full auto
Click to expand...

So except for the capability that every service rifle in the world has, it's a weapon of war? Our military actually uses semi-automatic handguns, bolt action rifles and repeating shotguns - are those weapons of war?

and the incidents of mass shootings and a terrorist attack involving these things; with all the weapons purchased at American gun stores is the problem.
Click to expand...

The most common firearm used in mass shootings is a handgun; shotguns are only slightly behind rifles for use in mass shootings. Can those be banned from purchase, too, because they are used in mass shootings?

YOU buy them because they look like weapons of war and there is no other reason for it.
Click to expand...

You've been corrected on this before, and you still continue to peddle your drivel.

So I'll say the same thing to you that I said to another poster: I've shown over and over again, and just recently too, that American gun control is a great part of American history and has always passed constitutional muster where such actions continue over challenges. Your visceral reactions to something that is as old as our country however, are brought on by marketers and lawyers and radical far right political agendas (also shown here) that have bastardized the second amendment and taken advantage of the like minded ignorant in this country.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the Heller and Miller decisions, and most of the ones listed here:

The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases
 
jet57 said:
So good, you agree that there's no compelling reason to own an AR; that's what I've been saying all along, so thanks for your honesty. If they get banned from sale, you won't miss them.
Click to expand...

There is no compelling reason you have presented to ban or restrict them.

The AR IS a military rifle that doesn't include select fire, so it's a "civilian version" that looks and acts almost like the real thing so that's why people buy them and for no other reason. The trouble however comes when weapons like this are intentionally used against the public, in terrorist and mass shooting incidents that kill many more people than other weapons could in the same amount of time by amateur shooters. The fact is, these types of weapons in the public arena are mass shootings waiting to happen, and if they weren't there to choose from, then like guns for suicide, spontaneous action would be curtailed or some less reliable method (read weapon) would be considered.
Click to expand...

There is no compelling evidence you have presented or that exist to suggest gun control can reduce mass killings, suicide or any other crime. Fact is there is no causal relationship and you have failed on every request to produce this claimed causal relationship. I ask again where is it?

I've shown over and over again that American gun control for public safety is a very American idea and is part and parcel with American history as ways that society protects itself from problem people with guns. So this paranoia over the issue is just irrational.
Click to expand...

You have shown no such thing that was not shot down in flames. You are most welcome to point to any such event that was not refuted. Do please at your earliest convenience.

The false promise of gun control in every part of the world is supposedly to increase public safety. Gun control can patently not increase public safety. There is no known mechanism by which it can. Your obsession with gun control is unnatural as it has no supporting evidence.

Claiming that disarming the victims of crime will make them safer is totally fraudulent.
 
Rucker61 said:
What public safety is provided by not allowing the sale of AR-15s?
Click to expand...

Those people killed in Orlando and San Bernadino, those cops in Dallas, the people in Auroa Colorado, etc etc etc. There is no rational use for such weapon in the public arena. Such a fact has been played out over and over again in American history. So, your disagreements can't hold water against it. You guys in the gun crowd just want those things because they're coool[i/].
 
jet57 said:
That part you bolded as a reason for banning couldn't be further from the truth if someone paid you say that it was. The trouble is they are weapons of war that have the capabilities of weapons of war except for select fire full auto and the incidents of mass shootings and a terrorist attack involving these things; with all the weapons purchased at American gun stores is the problem. YOU buy them because they look like weapons of war and there is no other reason for it.

So I'll say the same thing to you that I said to another poster: I've shown over and over again, and just recently too, that American gun control is a great part of American history and has always passed constitutional muster where such actions continue over challenges. Your visceral reactions to something that is as old as our country however, are brought on by marketers and lawyers and radical far right political agendas (also shown here) that have bastardized the second amendment and taken advantage of the like minded ignorant in this country.
Click to expand...

Baaaaah!!! I'm trying to speak a language you may understand..
 
Rucker61 said:
So except for the capability that every service rifle in the world has, it's a weapon of war? Our military actually uses semi-automatic handguns, bolt action rifles and repeating shotguns - are those weapons of war?



The most common firearm used in mass shootings is a handgun; shotguns are only slightly behind rifles for use in mass shootings. Can those be banned from purchase, too, because they are used in mass shootings?



You've been corrected on this before, and you still continue to peddle your drivel.



You must have missed the Heller and Miller decisions, and most of the ones listed here:

The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases
Click to expand...

You've never correct me. Heller defeats your argument - and so does THIS -

Even in the Wild West, there were rules about carrying concealed weapons - LA Times
… the evidence for limiting gun carry in general and concealed carry in particular is even greater than what was cited in the Peruta decision. Anti-concealed carry laws not only existed but were ubiquitous from the Colonial period through the start of the 20th century. Forty-five states adopted such laws, with most enacted in the early 19th century. They were a reaction to rising crime and interpersonal violence, especially in the South and the so-called Wild West, where anti-gun carry laws were rapidly put in place when cities and towns were established.

The laws often clearly stated what had motivated their passage. For example, New Jersey’s 1686 law imposed concealed carry restrictions by saying that “no person or persons … shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol … or other unusual or unlawful weapons within this Province” because the practice induced “great Fear and Quarrels.” An 1821 Tennessee law sought to punish anyone “so degrading himself” by carrying prohibited weapons including pistols. Georgia’s 1837 law began: “An Act to guard and protect the citizens of this State, against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” Alabama’s 1839 anti-concealed carry law was titled “An Act to Suppress the Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly.” Delaware’s 1852 law targeted “all who go armed offensively to the terror of the people.” The point was unmistakable: Anyone who carried a concealed gun was probably up to no good.
Click to expand...
 
jet57 said:
Those people killed in Orlando and San Bernadino, those cops in Dallas, the people in Auroa Colorado, etc etc etc. There is no rational use for such weapon in the public arena. Such a fact has been played out over and over again in American history. So, your disagreements can't hold water against it. You guys in the gun crowd just want those things because they're coool[i/].
Click to expand...


You have not shown that restrictions would or could make the slightest difference. Please do so now.
 
jet57 said:
Those people killed in Orlando and San Bernadino, those cops in Dallas, the people in Auroa Colorado, etc etc etc. There is no rational use for such weapon in the public arena. Such a fact has been played out over and over again in American history. So, your disagreements can't hold water against it. You guys in the gun crowd just want those things because they're coool[i/].
Click to expand...


But then we can use those people killed at Virginia Tech to outlaw handguns, and those killed at Columbine to outlaw shotguns, and those killed at the University of Iowa to outlaw revolvers. If your sole criteria is that they were used in mass murders, then all of these are also worthy of banning.

You don't get to decide what is rational use. There are 3 million people who own one, and about one person a year uses on in a mass murder. We've had three year periods in the last decade where not one single AR or analogue was used in a mass murder.
 
jet57 said:
So good, you agree that there's no compelling reason to own an AR...
Click to expand...
The compelling reason is it looks cool.

Stylistic preference is a valid reason to buy anything.
 
jet57 said:
So good, you agree that there's no compelling reason to own an AR; that's what I've been saying all along, so thanks for your honesty. If they get banned from sale, you won't miss them.
Click to expand...

Good thing there doesn't need to be compelling reason to buy and own something then.
 
BlackBook said:
The compelling reason is it looks cool.

Stylistic preference is a valid reason to buy anything.
Click to expand...

Good, then you want miss them if a ban come in.

Nice talkin to you.
 
jet57 said:
That part you bolded as a reason for banning couldn't be further from the truth if someone paid you say that it was. The trouble is they are weapons of war that have the capabilities of weapons of war except for select fire full auto and the incidents of mass shootings and a terrorist attack involving these things; with all the weapons purchased at American gun stores is the problem. YOU buy them because they look like weapons of war and there is no other reason for it.

So I'll say the same thing to you that I said to another poster: I've shown over and over again, and just recently too, that American gun control is a great part of American history and has always passed constitutional muster where such actions continue over challenges. Your visceral reactions to something that is as old as our country however, are brought on by marketers and lawyers and radical far right political agendas (also shown here) that have bastardized the second amendment and taken advantage of the like minded ignorant in this country.
Click to expand...

Posting a link to governments trampling the rights of its citizens in the past does not make it a great part of American history. If I post links to FDR putting American citizens in detention camps is that a great part of American history.
 
braindrain said:
Posting a link to governments trampling the rights of its citizens in the past does not make it a great part of American history. If I post links to FDR putting American citizens in detention camps is that a great part of American history.
Click to expand...

If we put all males age 15-29 in re-education camps, violence would plummet. If FDR did it, it must be okay, right?
 
braindrain said:
Posting a link to governments trampling the rights of its citizens in the past does not make it a great part of American history. If I post links to FDR putting American citizens in detention camps is that a great part of American history.
Click to expand...

FDR should have been removed from office-by any means possible-for his many rapes of the constitution.
 
Rucker61 said:
But then we can use those people killed at Virginia Tech to outlaw handguns, and those killed at Columbine to outlaw shotguns, and those killed at the University of Iowa to outlaw revolvers. If your sole criteria is that they were used in mass murders, then all of these are also worthy of banning.

You don't get to decide what is rational use. There are 3 million people who own one, and about one person a year uses on in a mass murder. We've had three year periods in the last decade where not one single AR or analogue was used in a mass murder.
Click to expand...

Oh! my goodness what a great question but expecting logical rationality from a gun control advocate is like expecting the sun not to rise. Somewhere in that convoluted cesspool of fear and lies they use for thought a fear filled emotional answer lies.
 
TurtleDude said:
FDR should have been removed from office-by any means possible-for his many rapes of the constitution.
Click to expand...

That is the problem given free reign of the press and media such people without opposition can always convince the horde they will be safer. Without the voice of objection the useful stooges and indoctrinated carry the vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom