• 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!

"Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle." [W:592]

Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

jet57 said:
View attachment 67216707

What Supreme Court decision said that the second amendment was not unlimited?

Go there and read that first.
Click to expand...

None. However, Miller said that weapons useful to a militia are protected, and Heller said weapons in common use for lawful purposes are protected. That covers civilian ownership of AR-15s quite well.

Evidently trucks are pretty horrific, too.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/15/world/15france-ss-2/15france-ss-2-master768-v3.jpg
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

beerftw said:
Almost every firearm in use was designed as a miliary weapon or derived it's designs from a military weapon. Heck even muskets of the founding fathers day, and even air rifles were designed as military weapons. The original revolver was designed as a military weapon, that ended up seeing more use civilian side due to the militaries reluctance to adopt it, after all arming a few hundred thousand men with revolvers and cartridge rifles at that time was cost prohibitive, while smoothbore and rifled muskets were abundant.


There were also rolling block rifles, lever action rifles,bolt action rifles, modern gas and recoil operated pistols etc, all intended for military use, all of them at their creation were designed as military weapons, because the military had the money to buy them until production ramped up and costs dropped, meaning the civilian use was an afterthought since the military market had the big bucks while the civilian market would often ignore the latest and greatest and use yesteryears guns, since they were bought and paid for.
Probably the only firearm not designed specifically for military use first was shotgun, as it was designed primarily for hunting birds and small game.
Click to expand...

one of the biggest lies of the bannerrhoid movement is trying to besmirch any firearm that was "designed for military use". well guess what, many weapons first designed for the civilian market were later adopted by the military. The first lever actions were civilian in nature. Same with the semi auto. Remington's model 1903 semi auto predated the US military's adoption of a semi automatic rifle by over 30 years.

The first sales of a successful submachine gun were to civilians in the USA. it was not until later did the Tommy Gun find official favor with the USA military. SO if we want to be technical, civilians and semi auto rifles and SMGs before the military did and if we use the Jet criteria, the bolt action rifle would be banned but not the Semi autos and fully automatic hand held firearms
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

vash1012 said:
Assault weapons is a federally accepted and associated press accepted term. See the Assault weapons ban of 1994. Considering this is a newspaper, the associated press has jurisdiction over whether this term is used correctly or not.

"The Associated Press Stylebook says that the media should differentiate between an "assault rifle," which has a fully automatic mode, and an "assault weapon," which is semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-them-assault-weapons/?utm_term=.f8a594f10f89

Whether you like the term or not does not make the use of the word not correct if the federal government uses it in writing legislation and the associated press uses it in their defined neutral dialogue.
Click to expand...

its sad that people accept blatant dishonesty from certain segments of our government.

Its really sad that you try to justify that after you have been edified that the military term "assault" is not facilitated by firearms that lack selective fire capability
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

jet57 said:
We're not talking about those are we. We're talking about how I've been right all along about the AR-15. So kiddie -like diversions and moving the goal posts - yet again won't work here. You're going to have admit what is plain and simply fact.
Click to expand...

The point then being that "so what"? Other implements were also initially designed for use by the military and made their way into the hands of civilians. If you feel that the only reason to ban the AR-15 is that is was originally designed as a weapon of war then the precedent is set to ban any other firearm previously handed down from military to civilians.

Furthermore, your position that we should ban it because of its origin doesn't hold in-law. Nothing in law says that the origin is sufficient to ban a weapon. In fact, your very claim ensures that the AR-15 falls under the protections of Miller. How your California mind skips right past that I just can't see.

Lastly, you feel it necessary to own an actual weapon of war, one so similar in capability to the AR-15 as to be indistinguishable. That makes you nothing more than a hypocritical troll.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

TurtleDude said:
why should I do that? putting the blame on the weapon is the sort of crap bannerrhoids do. A real libertarian would never buy into such nonsense. I have that very model of SIG sitting right next to my desk here. Its not an assault rifle since its worthless for a military assault. Bannerrhoids want slow witted sheeple to think those weapons were designed for "criminal assault"
Click to expand...

Worthless? Seemed to work pretty well in Orlando. I don't advocate banning, but I do advocate treating gun violence like a public health issue. It is your ilk that has banned a single federal penny from going to the study of stopping lone wolfs and fated martyrs from committing these atrocities. I think that makes you the "Bannerhoid".
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

TurtleDude said:
one of the biggest lies of the bannerrhoid movement is trying to besmirch any firearm that was "designed for military use". well guess what, many weapons first designed for the civilian market were later adopted by the military. The first lever actions were civilian in nature. Same with the semi auto. Remington's model 1903 semi auto predated the US military's adoption of a semi automatic rifle by over 30 years.

The first sales of a successful submachine gun were to civilians in the USA. it was not until later did the Tommy Gun find official favor with the USA military. SO if we want to be technical, civilians and semi auto rifles and SMGs before the military did and if we use the Jet criteria, the bolt action rifle would be banned but not the Semi autos and fully automatic hand held firearms
Click to expand...

I would partially disagree, those were all designed for military not civilian, they however often were rejected by the military, and pushed onto the civilian market after. But it goes to my point, claiming it should not be sold because it was designed as a military weapon is ludicrous, if that were the standard almost every firearm in america would be banned.

Heck just look at the colt revolver, it was designed for military, but was not really adopted by military so it was sold on the civilian market. Colt later went bankrupt and shut his factory down, until walker came along and funded him again over a desire to see his revolvers in his soldiers hands. The new revolver became the walker colt, walker died in battle carrying that revolver, but colt got on it's feet enough that the civilian market started to get hooked, and the military was slowly adopting colt revolvers as sidearms for cavalry.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

CriticalThought said:
Worthless? Seemed to work pretty well in Orlando. I don't advocate banning, but I do advocate treating gun violence like a public health issue. It is your ilk that has banned a single federal penny from going to the study of stopping lone wolfs and fated martyrs from committing these atrocities. I think that makes you the "Bannerhoid".
Click to expand...

that's idiotic. Why should the cdc, that has no expertise in criminology, be funded to create anti gun propaganda? I was a federal prosecutor for 24 years. The DOJ and the FBI has plenty of experts on violent crime. They don't ask the DOJ or FBI how to treat anal fissures or heart palpitations, why should the CDC be wasting its time pretending that armed criminals and our freedoms are a public health issue
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

beerftw said:
I would partially disagree, those were all designed for military not civilian, they however often were rejected by the military, and pushed onto the civilian market after. But it goes to my point, claiming it should not be sold because it was designed as a military weapon is ludicrous, if that were the standard almost every firearm in america would be banned.

Heck just look at the colt revolver, it was designed for military, but was not really adopted by military so it was sold on the civilian market. Colt later went bankrupt and shut his factory down, until walker came along and funded him again over a desire to see his revolvers in his soldiers hands. The new revolver became the walker colt, walker died in battle carrying that revolver, but colt got on it's feet enough that the civilian market started to get hooked, and the military was slowly adopting colt revolvers as sidearms for cavalry.
Click to expand...

I believe the Remington Semi auto was designed as a hunting weapon but your point has some merit because a military contract usually guarantees commercial success for the maker
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

eohrnberger said:
Yeah, right. Face it. The various gun bans that have gone back and forth through the legislative history, the web and flow of the controversy, there's no telling just how much bull**** has been piled up, by either side.

The second amendment is fundamental to the question and both sides continue to claim, over claim really, what it does and does not say, and what limits it may or may not have.

If Clinton was elected you can bet your bottom dollar that there's be some sort of gun ban / magazine ban legislation in the works by now.

Not willing to take that chance I purchased mine well before the election, several large capacity magazines as well as the serialized part(s) of rifle itself. The rest is just spare / replacement parts.

Man, it is fun to shoot it at the range, and gain proficiency with it, and since I assembled it myself, I learned enough to clean and properly maintain it.

Those who want to ban me, and the fun I have with it, well they can just go pound sand, as far as I'm concerned. From my view, I'm exercising my constitutional rights.

Hopefully those can't just be confiscated or banned just on some group of people's whim.
Click to expand...

I am 100% with you.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

TurtleDude said:
that's idiotic. Why should the cdc, that has no expertise in criminology, be funded to create anti gun propaganda? I was a federal prosecutor for 24 years. The DOJ and the FBI has plenty of experts on violent crime. They don't ask the DOJ or FBI how to treat anal fissures or heart palpitations, why should the CDC be wasting its time pretending that armed criminals and our freedoms are a public health issue
Click to expand...

If I remember correct, the cdc is not banned from doing any research or recieving funding for gun crime research, they were banned from recieving money to push anti gun propoganda, which they were literally caught doing, rather than doing actual research.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

CriticalThought said:
Worthless? Seemed to work pretty well in Orlando. I don't advocate banning, but I do advocate treating gun violence like a public health issue. It is your ilk that has banned a single federal penny from going to the study of stopping lone wolfs and fated martyrs from committing these atrocities. I think that makes you the "Bannerhoid".
Click to expand...

The FBI seems to be spending federal funds on studying active shooters.

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-resources

"lone wolfs and fated martyrs" shooters are so rare and groups of possible targets too vulnerable that there is no way to stop them.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

ttwtt78640 said:
Stating that the 2A is not unlimited is not the same as asserting that the 2A has your stated (desired?) limits. Even you are bright enough to appreciate the difference despite your allegations to the contrary. Your spewing of obvious misstatements of "fact" and then offering some unrelated BS as your rationale (excuse?) is getting very old. If you refuse to answer my specific questions then simply do not respond to my posts.
Click to expand...

BS, assault weapons can be banned; that means the AR15 can be banned because of what it really is, not what you want it to be.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

jet57 said:
BS, assault weapons can be banned; that means the AR15 can be banned because of what it really is, not what you want it to be.
Click to expand...

If the assault weapon can be banned from civilian ownership, then any weapon can be banned from civilian ownership.

Banning the AR-15 would do nothing with regards to mass shootings or the crime rate.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

beerftw said:
One no cannons were not designed to fire rocks, the early cannons were bronze and fired either bronze, forged iron, or polished stone and not rocks. Medieval handguns and cannons were never intended to fire rocks, and especially cannons, because until cast iron was perfected, cannons were extremely expensive and difficult to make, hence no army would put anything that would damage them in there.

On the ar no it was not designed to mow people down, it was designed as a light infantry rifle initially with full auto capability, however that full auto was removed later with the m-16 a2 and the ar never had full auto as far as I can tell for civilian models outside of testing.

The full auto is not able to mow people down anyways, unless the enemy is retarded enough to charge a choke point manned by a machine gun. Full auto is only more effective than semi for suppressive fire, which is to keep their heads down and suppress their movement so your side can progress and take the enemy position.

Further it was also designed to be medium accuracy, medium range, medium power, and basically a jack of all trades, master of none, it was made so arming infantry with a single rifle could be done rather than multiple guns with more specialized tasks. Even further the ar is not sold to civilians in full auto or burst, and it's firing capacity is the same as all other semi auto rifles or handguns.
Click to expand...


The Cannon

The Chinese made the cannon in the 14th Century. The exact date is 1320. The purpose of this machine is to kill the enemy. The cannon was used many times in 14th century warfare. There are many variations of cannons. One is Leonardo Da Vinci’s steam cannon. This cannon used the power of steam. The picture below is Leonardo Da Vinci’s steam cannon. This cannon was much better than other cannons because the projectiles it shot fit perfectly in the barrel so it could fire at full power and go real far. The other cannons were just regular looking that fired rocks that fit loosely in the cannon so it didn’t have full power and range.
Click to expand...
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

Rucker61 said:
None. However, Miller said that weapons useful to a militia are protected, and Heller said weapons in common use for lawful purposes are protected. That covers civilian ownership of AR-15s quite well.

Evidently trucks are pretty horrific, too.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/15/world/15france-ss-2/15france-ss-2-master768-v3.jpg
Click to expand...

We have no militias. The AR15 was designed as a weapon of warfare just like I said it was.

End of story.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

Rucker61 said:
The point then being that "so what"? Other implements were also initially designed for use by the military and made their way into the hands of civilians. If you feel that the only reason to ban the AR-15 is that is was originally designed as a weapon of war then the precedent is set to ban any other firearm previously handed down from military to civilians.

Furthermore, your position that we should ban it because of its origin doesn't hold in-law. Nothing in law says that the origin is sufficient to ban a weapon. In fact, your very claim ensures that the AR-15 falls under the protections of Miller. How your California mind skips right past that I just can't see.

Lastly, you feel it necessary to own an actual weapon of war, one so similar in capability to the AR-15 as to be indistinguishable. That makes you nothing more than a hypocritical troll.
Click to expand...

The POINT is a very simple one: you gun guys are and have been wrong on the issue of the AR15 and it's original design and purpose was.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

Rucker61 said:
If the assault weapon can be banned from civilian ownership, then any weapon can be banned from civilian ownership.

Banning the AR-15 would do nothing with regards to mass shootings or the crime rate.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Take that to suckers who will believe it. The second amendment is not falling down.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

beerftw said:
If I remember correct, the cdc is not banned from doing any research or recieving funding for gun crime research, they were banned from recieving money to push anti gun propoganda, which they were literally caught doing, rather than doing actual research.
Click to expand...

the head of the CDC was quoted bragging that they were going to do to guns what they had done to tobacco.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

jet57 said:
Nonsense. Take that to suckers who will believe it. The second amendment is not falling down.
Click to expand...

on the contrary, the second amendment has been raped repeatedly by the federal government and by many state governments
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

jet57 said:
BS, assault weapons can be banned; that means the AR15 can be banned because of what it really is, not what you want it to be.
Click to expand...

What it really is - a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and it is not banned in Texas. If you support such a ban then fine, if I do not that is also fine and we can both vote accordingly. Meanwhile, the desires of the AR-15 inventor's heirs make no difference at all to me.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

jet57 said:
The POINT is a very simple one: you gun guys are and have been wrong on the issue of the AR15 and it's original design and purpose was.
Click to expand...

Actually you seem to be wrong on it's original design and purpose, since you seem to have no idea the reason or why a middle ground all purpose infantry rifle was made, and instead assume is was made to mow people down, which has pretty much not happened since ww2 and not in mass since ww1, hence the ending of trench warfare and the realization that fighting in chokepoints was bad strategy.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

ttwtt78640 said:
What it really is - a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and it is not banned in Texas. If you support such a ban then fine, if I do not that is also fine and we can both vote accordingly. Meanwhile, the desires of the AR-15 inventor's heirs make no difference at all to me.
Click to expand...

definately not banned in texas, bought an ar 15 in 22 cal for training as 5.56 can be pricy, I am planning on piecing together an ar-15 in 5.56 how I want it, as none of the aftermarket ones in my pricerange are how I want them, I served my entire active duty time with an m16-a2, and even deployed with one, I know every inch of the a2 and that is what I want.

Now my scary rifle might scare some people out of state because it is a black rifle that fires 22lr, and soon to be a 5.56 that is black, but I do not care. I am in debate however whether to do an 80% lower or to buy a lower from an ffl, and currently I am leaning ffl just incase I ever decide to sell it.
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

I'd like Jet tell us how the government can ban a type of rifle and pretend that the second amendment allows that.
You see the second amendment is not about what we can OWN but what the GOVERNMENT cannot DO. and Jet seems to pretend that the government suddenly gets the power to ban some types of guns based on the fact others are available. Think that through and if you are honest, you will understand how specious that position is
 
Re: "Texas school holds raffle for AR-15 assault rifle."

jet57 said:
Nonsense. Take that to suckers who will believe it. The second amendment is not falling down.
Click to expand...

The fact that Maryland, New York and Maryland have banned "assault weapons" and California has banned "high-capacity" magazines in direct conflict with SCOTUS decision US v Miller points out your lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom