• 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!

The Stupidity of AR-15 Bans

I have, have you?

That only works if you register it in the first place. And as I said, if you're the kind of person who sells guns to felons, then why would you register it? And if for some odd reason you registered it by accident, why would you sell it to a felon without first removing the serial number?

Good. Let people roll the dice and keep unregistered guns. Throw a few in prison and the message gets out. But we have just made it much much harder for felons to get guns
 
Good. Let people roll the dice and keep unregistered guns. Throw a few in prison and the message gets out. But we have just made it much much harder for felons to get guns

Repeating something that makes no sense doesn't cause it to make any more sense.
 
Good. Let people roll the dice and keep unregistered guns. Throw a few in prison and the message gets out. But we have just made it much much harder for felons to get guns

How, exactly, would you "throw a few in prison" for keeping unregistered guns? We rarely do that now for convicted felons who simply illegally possess guns.
 
How, exactly, would you "throw a few in prison" for keeping unregistered guns? We rarely do that now for convicted felons who simply illegally possess guns.

If a convicted felon has a gun we most certainly can put them in jail
 
If a convicted felon has a gun we most certainly can put them in jail

Can is not must. The idea that failing to have a gun registered is as (or more) serious than a prohibited person in possession of a gun (already a felony) is ridiculous and why many object to enacting any such gun registration law.
 
Can is not must. The idea that failing to have a gun registered is as (or more) serious than a prohibited person in possession of a gun (already a felony) is ridiculous and why many object to enacting any such gun registration law.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.


Registration works in dozens of places
 
that was never the intention of the commerce clause and since no one ever used that until FDR did, it shows how dishonest it was. But let's accept your argument. Tell me why the ATF can prohibit a resident in Ohio from making a machine gun for use only in Ohio

That would be incorrect. Check SCOTUS 'Gibbons v. Ogden 1824'
 
That would be incorrect. Check SCOTUS 'Gibbons v. Ogden 1824'

Discuss the dozens of new deal bills that were struck down by the USSC before the 1936 election. And tell me any law-based on the Commerce clause-that enabled congressional power over private citizens acting within their own state-prior to the FDR nonsense.
 
Discuss the dozens of new deal bills that were struck down by the USSC before the 1936 election. And tell me any law-based on the Commerce clause-that enabled congressional power over private citizens acting within their own state-prior to the FDR nonsense.

I'm not talking about any of that. You said FDR was responsible, that is wrong. I'm not talking about private ownership, I'm talking about interstate commerce. If a gun is manufactured in one state and sent to another state to be sold, Congress has the ability and right to regulate that. Period.
 
I'm not talking about any of that. You said FDR was responsible, that is wrong. I'm not talking about private ownership, I'm talking about interstate commerce. If a gun is manufactured in one state and sent to another state to be sold, Congress has the ability and right to regulate that. Period.

Congress can also regulate gun sales within a state according to wickard
 
I'm not talking about any of that. You said FDR was responsible, that is wrong. I'm not talking about private ownership, I'm talking about interstate commerce. If a gun is manufactured in one state and sent to another state to be sold, Congress has the ability and right to regulate that. Period.

And what of the second amendment? Are you aware of the Lopez decision and the USSC pulling back from the FDR idiocy-five of the justices in the Obamacare case said the commerce clause was not a proper basis for that law
 
Three thousand four hundred and fifty three people died from AR-15 fire in 2015.

Oh, no, wait... That's swimming pool drowning deaths.

The number of people killed by rifle fire is about 200 on an average year. That's about 3% of the total number of gun deaths.

Most gun deaths are due to handguns. More people are killed on an average Chicago weekend by handguns than are killed all year by rifles of all kinds, much less AR-15s.

Why is the focus on AR-15s? It's stupid. You don't see any gang bangers carrying AR-15s. People don't shoot themselves with AR-15s.

Banning AR-15s will do almost nothing aside from hurting law abiding owners.

I think the focus on the AR-15 (and similar weapons) is quite telling. It tells me that the government understands the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, because they want to eliminate a weapon that would likely be used to protect that right.
 
Repeating something that makes no sense doesn't cause it to make any more sense.

Come on man, makes perfect sence we threw a few people in jail for murder the word got out and we haven't had any murders in years

/sarcasm
 
Come on man, makes perfect sence we threw a few people in jail for murder the word got out and we haven't had any murders in years

/sarcasm

It only works in dozens of places all over the world. Lol
 
And what of the second amendment? Are you aware of the Lopez decision and the USSC pulling back from the FDR idiocy-five of the justices in the Obamacare case said the commerce clause was not a proper basis for that law

What about the 2nd Amendment? Restrictions on gun ownership have been found to be constitutional. So what about Lopez? Finding one area of Commerce Clause where Congress exceeded their authority doesn't mean every use of the Commerce Clause is invalid. Same thing about the ACA, except that law was not found to be unconstitutional. Whatever the 5 said about the Commerce clause nothing changed and the law has been upheld. Anything else?
 
What about the 2nd Amendment? Restrictions on gun ownership have been found to be constitutional. So what about Lopez? Finding one area of Commerce Clause where Congress exceeded their authority doesn't mean every use of the Commerce Clause is invalid. Same thing about the ACA, except that law was not found to be unconstitutional. Whatever the 5 said about the Commerce clause nothing changed and the law has been upheld. Anything else?

I guess you haven't been following the court over the last 20 yeas where stuff that isn't directly economic is not going to find favor in using the commerce clause as justification
 
Back
Top Bottom