• 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 Deadly Selfishness Behind the AR-15

ataraxia said:
Of course. That's what Chief Justice Antonin Scalia meant when he said:
Click to expand...

Yep, but semi-auto rifles are also "those in common use for lawful purposes" (i.e. millions have been legally sold by FFL dealers).

9f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
 
JackA said:
Need is the only possible justification for marketing a product used for killing people.
Click to expand...

For marketing? What?!? We are talking about the right to own and bear, not marketing. You seem very confused.
 
ataraxia said:
Of course. That's what Chief Justice Antonin Scalia meant when he said:

"...prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
-Antonin Scalia
Click to expand...

And since the AR-15 is currently the hottest selling rifle in America at eight million and rising fast.......it could never qualify as "unusual."

Doesn't sound like Scalia was your friend.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but semi-auto rifles are also "those in common use for lawful purposes" (i.e. millions have been sold by FFL dealers).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Click to expand...

They are being used commonly alright: for massacres.

Consequences speak for themselves. These weapons have proven themselves, over and over again, to be too dangerous for unscreened, unregulated, untrained civilian use. How many more massacres before that point gets driven home?
 
ataraxia said:
From your link:



So that just means the large capacity magazines had to go too.
Click to expand...

Nothing "went" because of the grandfather clause - it would be hard to really ban magazines of over 15 rounds which are clearly in common use for lawful purposes.
 
Vox said:
And since the AR-15 is currently the hottest selling rifle in America at eight million and rising fast.......it could never qualify as "unusual."

Doesn't sound like Scalia was your friend.
Click to expand...

Also the hottest weapon of choice for massacres in the US.

It's only temporarily common right now because of the NRA. That can be fixed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nothing "went" because of the grandfather clause - it would be hard to really ban magazines of over 15 rounds which are clearly in common use for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...

To do what? What are these common and lawful purposes they are being used for?

The only thing I can think of is practicing at a target range. And for that, they can just be available for use at the range. What other lawful purposes are they good for?

They need to go too.
 
ataraxia said:
Also the hottest weapon of choice for massacres in the US.

It's only temporarily common right now because of the NRA. That can be fixed.
Click to expand...

It doesn't fit the definition you tried to use by Scalia, so you're out of ammo.

(You should have had a high capacity magazine.)

:D
 
ataraxia said:
To do what? What are these common and lawful purposes they are being used for?

The only thing I can think of is practicing at a target range. And for that, they can just be available for use at the range. What other lawful purposes are they good for?

They need to go too.
Click to expand...

In use by MILLIONS of competitive target shooters all over the U.S.--a pursuit which is both common and lawful.

Plus more (many more) used in self-defense (also common and lawful).

You really should read up on this stuff before you post.
 
Vox said:
In use by MILLIONS of competitive target shooters all over the U.S.--a pursuit which is both common and lawful.
Click to expand...

They can do it at the gun range.

Plus more (many more) used in self-defense (also common and lawful).
Click to expand...

Only if you are being invaded by an army. For self-defense at home or on the street, the most you need is a small caliber handgun.
 
ataraxia said:
They can do it at a gun range.



Only if you are being invaded by an army. For self-defense, the most you need is a small caliber handgun.
Click to expand...

Now you're really getting silly.

Your home is being invaded by thugs armed with Glocks with 17-round magazines and you choose a small caliber handgun?

You must be one of those "suicide by thug" folks.

:D
 
ataraxia said:
Say, have you notice that fewer yet have been killed by a nuke? So let's put them on sale at Walmart!The Constitution does say "The right to arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say nuclear arms are an exception.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The Constitution explicitly states a right to keep and BEAR arms.......can't carry a nuke.

Keep trying though......you may exceed zero wins yet, who knows?
 
ataraxia said:
Say, have you notice that fewer yet have been killed by a nuke? So let's put them on sale at Walmart!The Constitution does say "The right to arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say nuclear arms are an exception.
Click to expand...

Yep, nukes are just like knives and rifles - look it up.
 
JackA said:
My selfishness won’t foreseeably get anyone killed. Unlike yours.
Click to expand...
Just how many people did my guns kill?

But keep repeating that over and over agian repeat a lie long enough people will believe it.
 
ataraxia said:
They are being used commonly alright: for massacres.

Consequences speak for themselves. These weapons have proven themselves, over and over again, to be too dangerous for unscreened, unregulated, untrained civilian use. How many more massacres before that point gets driven home?
Click to expand...

Read the words........lawful purposes is what it says and you changed that to massacres.

Gosh......we need to teach reading comprehension.

Lawful purposes far exceed a few "massacres."

Also.....please note that SOME massacres are lawful and good (like those thugs that invaded your home).
 
chuckiechan said:
You don't need a 60" TV either, and you don't need a lawn. In fact, if you leave it up to me, you don't even need anymore that I, the government decides to give you. I will bury you with regulations and permits making your freedom to choose just too damn expensive. If you let me roll back one thing, I will be energized to roll back more and more until I roll you up in a little ball and store you in the closet.

What about the millions of gun owners who own AR15's that didn't kill anyone?
Click to expand...

Let me know when someone kills a dozen teenagers with a television.
 
Vox said:
Wrong.

The Constitution explicitly states a right to keep and BEAR arms.......can't carry a nuke.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know about that. This briefcase looks plenty carryable...

nuke.webp
 
****in Kinder Eggs are banned from sale in the United States, to protect children.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, nukes are just like knives and rifles - look it up.
Click to expand...

Semiautoamatic weapons are weapons designed for mass killlings. That makes them more like the nukes than the knives.
 
Vox said:
Wrong.

The Constitution explicitly states a right to keep and BEAR arms.......can't carry a nuke.

Keep trying though......you may exceed zero wins yet, who knows?
Click to expand...

They come small enough to carry, actually.

But if your criteria is "can be carried," does this extend to the TurboLaser9000 someone develops in 2118? How about just a good ol' fashion pipe bomb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom