Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[Nosmo King]

And the octane was 92, not the reported 87.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They should be able to intelligently tell me if the AR-15 Pistol is still an "Assault Weapon"....though....in fairness...I bet most of them didn't even know such a gun existed. AR-15 Pistol??? It's not an oxymoron.

There are no assault weapons available to the general public, no matter how dangerous they mitght look. All semi auto's shoot only one round at a time.

An assault weapon by definition must be fully automatic?

Assault rifles are full-auto.
'Assault weapons' are semi-autos that look like assault rifles.

A distinction without a difference.

Well no, it demonstrates a difference.

An M16A2 is not full auto.

3RB is considered FA, at least in legal terms.

 

[Slade3200]

Stop with the lying BS we aren't in grade school.

I'm sorry -- you stated that "Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun!"
You seek to block the sale of 'assault weapons', a class of firearms I hava right to; thus, you seek to block my right to a gun.
What would you have me call that, if not a lie?

You want me to cite a gun that is justified to be banned? Easy, automatic machine guns

MGs are not banned; I know several people who legally have them; anyone who can legally own a gun can legally own a machinegun.

You obviously aren't interested in having a reasonable debate and i'm not interested in wasting my time spelling everything out of you. If you honestly do not understand my arguments then lets just let it lie. If you understand my points and want to respond with real counter arguments then we can proceed. Otherwise, i'm done with the petty word games.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stop with the lying BS we aren't in grade school.

I'm sorry -- you stated that "Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun!"
You seek to block the sale of 'assault weapons', a class of firearms I hava right to; thus, you seek to block my right to a gun.
What would you have me call that, if not a lie?

You want me to cite a gun that is justified to be banned? Easy, automatic machine guns

MGs are not banned; I know several people who legally have them; anyone who can legally own a gun can legally own a machinegun.

You obviously aren't interested in having a reasonable debate...

On the contrary -- I find it exceptionally reasonable to expect you to rectify your opposing and conflicting statements.
Don't you?
So, please begin.

 

[Slade3200]

Stop with the lying BS we aren't in grade school.

I'm sorry -- you stated that "Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun!"
You seek to block the sale of 'assault weapons', a class of firearms I hava right to; thus, you seek to block my right to a gun.
What would you have me call that, if not a lie?

You want me to cite a gun that is justified to be banned? Easy, automatic machine guns

MGs are not banned; I know several people who legally have them; anyone who can legally own a gun can legally own a machinegun.

You obviously aren't interested in having a reasonable debate...

On the contrary -- I find it exceptionally reasonable to expect you to rectify your opposing and conflicting statements.
Don't you?
So, please begin.

As to the statement "nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun" This is true in the sense that any law abiding citizen can go to a store and buy a gun... The government is not trying to take away the right for American to own a gun. The statement is not true in the sense that some weapons that are deemed unnecessarily dangerous will and should be banned and/or taken away. It is the same reason why you can't go to the local depot and buy land mines or a nuclear warhead or an automatic machine gun... There is a very valid justification for this... Public safety. It is what justifies the debate in determining which weapons should be allowed and which should not be allowed.

Lets start simple... You either condone regulating and banning certain weapons or you don't. If you don't then you open up the entire available arsenal of weapons including bombs and military assault weapons to the general public... What do YOU support... some regulation or none?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stop with the lying BS we aren't in grade school.

I'm sorry -- you stated that "Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun!"
You seek to block the sale of 'assault weapons', a class of firearms I hava right to; thus, you seek to block my right to a gun.
What would you have me call that, if not a lie?

You want me to cite a gun that is justified to be banned? Easy, automatic machine guns

MGs are not banned; I know several people who legally have them; anyone who can legally own a gun can legally own a machinegun.

You obviously aren't interested in having a reasonable debate...

On the contrary -- I find it exceptionally reasonable to expect you to rectify your opposing and conflicting statements.
Don't you?
So, please begin.

As to the statement "nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun" This is true in the sense that any law abiding citizen can go to a store and buy a gun...

But it is NOT true in that you seek to block my right to buy an 'assault weapon'
In that, you block my right to buy a gun; just like you said you were not.

Does banning Islam block the right to the free exercise of religion? Yes? Same thing.

It is the same reason why you can't go to the local depot and buy land mines or a nuclear warhead or an automatic machine gun..

There's a class-III dealer down the street - I can buy as many marchioness as I have the money for.

There is a very valid justification for this... Public safety.

Handguns cannot be banned w/o violating the constitution, regardless of public safety.
Handguns are used to commit murder 20x more than rifles of all kinds, and likely 40x more often than 'assault weapons'.
Why do you think 'assault weapons' can be constitutionally banned for 'public safety'?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Handguns are used to commit murder 20x more than rifles of all kinds, and likely 40x more often than 'assault weapons'.
Why do you think 'assault weapons' can be constitutionally banned for 'public safety'?

If you were a cop, and a punk was firing a weapon at you from 25 feet away, would you as a cop prefer to be trading shots with a guy with a pistol in his hand? Or an AR 15 semi auto rifle?

Which weapon is more accurate? Which weapon puts more rounds on a target? Etc etc.


You surprise an intruder. He has a gun. You prefer facing a pistol..or a semi auto rifle?

Your kid goes crazy and breaks into your gun cabinet and steals your weapon. Could the kid do more damage with a single shot .22 or a semi auto AR 15?

There is a difference in lethality between different types of weapons. Gun nutters should know and understand this. Instead they want to act like all weapons are equal. Bullshit. They are not or we would all have the availability of all types of weapons.

 

[Slade3200]

Stop with the lying BS we aren't in grade school.

I'm sorry -- you stated that "Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun!"
You seek to block the sale of 'assault weapons', a class of firearms I hava right to; thus, you seek to block my right to a gun.
What would you have me call that, if not a lie?

You want me to cite a gun that is justified to be banned? Easy, automatic machine guns

MGs are not banned; I know several people who legally have them; anyone who can legally own a gun can legally own a machinegun.

You obviously aren't interested in having a reasonable debate...

On the contrary -- I find it exceptionally reasonable to expect you to rectify your opposing and conflicting statements.
Don't you?
So, please begin.

As to the statement "nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun" This is true in the sense that any law abiding citizen can go to a store and buy a gun...

But it is NOT true in that you seek to block my right to buy an 'assault weapon'
In that, you block my right to buy a gun; just like you said you were not.

Does banning Islam block the right to the free exercise of religion? Yes? Same thing.

It is the same reason why you can't go to the local depot and buy land mines or a nuclear warhead or an automatic machine gun..

There's a class-III dealer down the street - I can buy as many marchioness as I have the money for.

There is a very valid justification for this... Public safety.

Handguns cannot be banned w/o violating the constitution, regardless of public safety.
Handguns are used to commit murder 20x more than rifles of all kinds, and likely 40x more often than 'assault weapons'.
Why do you think 'assault weapons' can be constitutionally banned for 'public safety'?

Blocking Islam is not the same thing... If you want to use a real comparison it would be like blocking the sacrificial slaughter of sheep in a public square, or the whipping of sinning school children as a means of punishment... Anything that is deemed dangerous or harmful to the public.

There's a class-III dealer down the street - I can buy as many marchioness as I have the money for.

Great you prove my point, these weapons are regulated and there is a need for a special license to get these. Joe Blow can't go to the local sporting goods store and by a weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties in a short period of time. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A GOOD AND EFFECTIVE THING??? Is your head stuck that deep up your ass?

Do you understand that if we put uzis in the hands of criminals that are committing pistol murders we end up with more casualties?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Blocking Islam is not the same thing... If you want to use a real comparison it would be like blocking the sacrificial slaughter of sheep in a public square, or the whipping of sinning school children as a means of punishment... Anything that is deemed dangerous or harmful to the public.

You argue that "blocking" 'assault weapons' does not block the right to keep and bear arms because you can still buy other guns.
"Blocking" Islam does not "block" the right to freely practice religion because you can still be Christian.
Same thing.

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear 'assault weapons; to "block" the sale/possession of 'assault weapons' is to "block" to keep and bear arms.
Thus, you seek to block the right to keep and bear arms, directly contrary to your claim that no one wants to do this.

There's a class-III dealer down the street - I can buy as many marchioness as I have the money for.

Great you prove my point...

Your point was that you cannot buy a machine gun because they are too great a danger to public safety.
Your point, negated.

Is your head stuck that deep up your ass?

I thought you took exception to petulant personal attacks. Guess not.

Still waiting for you to address this:
-Handguns cannot be banned w/o violating the constitution, regardless of public safety.
-Handguns are used to commit murder 20x more than rifles of all kinds, and likely 40x more often than 'assault weapons'.
Why do you think 'assault weapons' can be constitutionally banned for 'public safety'?

 

[Slade3200]

You argue that "blocking" 'assault weapons' does not block the right to keep and bear arms because you can still buy other guns.
"Blocking" Islam does not "block" the right to freely practice religion because you can still be Christian.
Same thing.

That's not even close to the same thing. Your Christian example is like me saying that we don't need guns we can still by swords, i'm not saying this. My analogy is accurate. Certain weapons including guns should be banned/regulated for the good of public safety. Blocking those weapons is equivalent to not allowing religions to break the law or engage in unsafe practices in the name of religion. Its allowing protest but not violence or libel or slander as part of freedom of speech.

Your point was that you cannot buy a machine gun because they are too great a danger to public safety.
Your point, negated.

My point was that Joe Blow can just walk into a store and by these weapons. I don't necessarily support a ban on all these weapons. I would be fine requiring a special license, higher security check, and perhaps registration for these types of "higher level" weapons. Point being there should not be easy access for normal citizens.

I thought you took exception to petulant personal attacks. Guess not.

You're right, apologies... I can't tell if you are trying to poke at me or if you really don't understand. You keep distorting and misinterpreting my points and I got frustrated but don't think we need to go down the road of personal attacks. My bad.

Still waiting for you to address this:
-Handguns cannot be banned w/o violating the constitution, regardless of public safety.
-Handguns are used to commit murder 20x more than rifles of all kinds, and likely 40x more often than 'assault weapons'.
Why do you think 'assault weapons' can be constitutionally banned for 'public safety'?

I feel like i've been answering this.
- Discussions between our law enforcement, government, and citizens should constantly be had to evaluate what is best for both the public safety and personal security of our citizens. These discussion will determine which types of weapons should be legal sold and which shouldn't. As long as personal security and public safety are both being considered we should be able to reach a reasonable compromise. (After discussions like this my hopes for "reasonable" are greatly diminished"

- Yes, more murders are made by handguns but that stat is not relevant to this discussion. The issue is the amount of firepower a single person should legally be able to purchase and hold.

- Assault weapons can be legal banned for the same reasons why we don't sell Nukes and mustard gas at the weapons shop. If it is deemed that they possess an unnecessary amount of fire power for one person to have to maintain a reasonable amount of public safety then they should be banned or regulated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You argue that "blocking" 'assault weapons' does not block the right to keep and bear arms because you can still buy other guns.
"Blocking" Islam does not "block" the right to freely practice religion because you can still be Christian.
Same thing.

That's not even close to the same thing.

-Banning votes for Democrats foes not violate your right to vote because you can still vote for someone else.
-Banning criticism of the President doe snot violate free speech because you can still criticize Congress
-Banning Islam does not violate the free exercise of religion because you can still be Cristian-
-Banning 'assault weapons' does ot violate the right to arms because you can still buy handguns.
Exactly. the same.

Blocking those weapons is equivalent to not allowing religions to break the law or engage in unsafe practices in the name of religion.

Non sequitur.
The law abiding have a right to own and possess an 'assault weapon'; religions do not have the right to sacrifice humans.
That you can ban the latter in no way means you can ban the former.

My point was that Joe Blow can just walk into a store and by these weapons.I don't necessarily support a ban on all these weapons. I would be fine requiring a special license, higher security check, and perhaps registration for these types of "higher level" weapons. Point being there should not be easy access for normal citizens.

Your desire is to "block" 'assault weapons' on the grounds of public safety.
"Blocking" " these weapons, suddenly, isn't a ban, but "regulation"?
How does "regulation "block" these weapons, when anyone what can legally buy an 'assault weapon' (or any other firearm) can legally buy a machine gun?

Discussions between our law enforcement, government, ....

...are completely irrelevant to the question.

- Yes, more murders are made by handguns but that stat is not relevant to this discussion. The issue is the amount of firepower a single person should legally be able to purchase and hold.

>> Public safety <<.
Handguns present ~40x more of a threat to public safety than 'assault weapons'
Handguns cannot be constitutionally banned regardless of their effect on same.
Thus, there's no 'public safety' argument for the constitutionally of banning 'assault weapons'.

- Assault weapons can be legal banned for the same reasons why we don't sell Nukes and mustard gas at the weapons shop.

I'm not sure if this is laughably asinine or asininely laughable.
-Firearms are not weapons of mass destruction
-The constitution protects the right to firearms, not nukes.

 

[paulitician]

Man i'm sorry, but these threads serve no purpose. The Gun Grabber goal is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the Citizenry. Some of em won't acknowledge that as the goal, but it is their end-game. It is what it is.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

It still has that scary assault, machine gun of death hand grippy thing and it still probally fires a gazillion rounds a second

 

[Slade3200]

You argue that "blocking" 'assault weapons' does not block the right to keep and bear arms because you can still buy other guns.
"Blocking" Islam does not "block" the right to freely practice religion because you can still be Christian.
Same thing.

That's not even close to the same thing.

-Banning votes for Democrats foes not violate your right to vote because you can still vote for someone else.
-Banning criticism of the President doe snot violate free speech because you can still criticize Congress
-Banning Islam does not violate the free exercise of religion because you can still be Cristian-
-Banning 'assault weapons' does ot violate the right to arms because you can still buy handguns.
Exactly. the same.

Blocking those weapons is equivalent to not allowing religions to break the law or engage in unsafe practices in the name of religion.

Non sequitur.
The law abiding have a right to own and possess an 'assault weapon'; religions do not have the right to sacrifice humans.
That you can ban the latter in no way means you can ban the former.

My point was that Joe Blow can just walk into a store and by these weapons.I don't necessarily support a ban on all these weapons. I would be fine requiring a special license, higher security check, and perhaps registration for these types of "higher level" weapons. Point being there should not be easy access for normal citizens.

Your desire is to "block" 'assault weapons' on the grounds of public safety.
"Blocking" " these weapons, suddenly, isn't a ban, but "regulation"?
How does "regulation "block" these weapons, when anyone what can legally buy an 'assault weapon' (or any other firearm) can legally buy a machine gun?

Discussions between our law enforcement, government, ....

...are completely irrelevant to the question.

- Yes, more murders are made by handguns but that stat is not relevant to this discussion. The issue is the amount of firepower a single person should legally be able to purchase and hold.

>> Public safety <<.
Handguns present ~40x more of a threat to public safety than 'assault weapons'
Handguns cannot be constitutionally banned regardless of their effect on same.
Thus, there's no 'public safety' argument for the constitutionally of banning 'assault weapons'.

- Assault weapons can be legal banned for the same reasons why we don't sell Nukes and mustard gas at the weapons shop.

I'm not sure if this is laughably asinine or asininely laughable.
-Firearms are not weapons of mass destruction
-The constitution protects the right to firearms, not nukes.

Ok, enough with the analogies, we are obviously on two different wavelengths. I feel like you are making a case for 2+2=A

Im tired of the novels so i'll keep this short and sweet. The law says we can bear arms. It doesn't say firearms or pistols or machine guns. It is up to our lawmakers to decide what constitutes an arm, yes? You laugh at my nuke/mustard gas example but will ask, what is the difference between a WMD and a firearm? There is not clear distinction in the constitution so this sets a precedent of setting standards or what is a legal "arm" You either agree with the fact that there needs to be a distinction or if you don't than any and all weapons, including bombs are fair game.

 

[Slade3200]

Man i'm sorry, but these threads serve no purpose. The Gun Grabber goal is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the Citizenry. Some of em won't acknowledge that as the goal, but it is their end-game. It is what it is.

Complete BS. It's this lame paranoia that stalls the debate.

 

[paulitician]

Man i'm sorry, but these threads serve no purpose. The Gun Grabber goal is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the Citizenry. Some of em won't acknowledge that as the goal, but it is their end-game. It is what it is.

Complete BS. It's this lame paranoia that stalls the debate.

No, that is your end-game. So there's no point in discussing the issue with you folks. You're Gun Grabbers. It is what it is.

 

[Slade3200]

Man i'm sorry, but these threads serve no purpose. The Gun Grabber goal is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the Citizenry. Some of em won't acknowledge that as the goal, but it is their end-game. It is what it is.

Complete BS. It's this lame paranoia that stalls the debate.

No, that is your end-game. So there's no point in discussing the issue with you folks. You're Gun Grabbers. It is what it is.

Keep feeding the paranoia buddy... It's complete BS. I'm a gun owner but understand and support a certain level of gun control. Know many others just like me. It's called common sense.

 

[paulitician]

Man i'm sorry, but these threads serve no purpose. The Gun Grabber goal is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the Citizenry. Some of em won't acknowledge that as the goal, but it is their end-game. It is what it is.

Complete BS. It's this lame paranoia that stalls the debate.

No, that is your end-game. So there's no point in discussing the issue with you folks. You're Gun Grabbers. It is what it is.

Keep feeding the paranoia buddy... It's complete BS. I'm a gun owner but understand and support a certain level of gun control. Know many others just like me. It's called common sense.

Yeah sure. Nice story.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok, enough with the analogies, we are obviously on two different wavelengths.

Yes.
I understand that arguing it is permissible to ban one aspect of a right because people still have access to the other aspects is Constitutional hooey. You do not.

I'm tired of the novels so i'll keep this short and sweet.
The law says we can bear arms. It doesn't say firearms or pistols or machine guns.

Fortunately that the Court has spoken on this:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
-
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: .... Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Are 'assault weapons' "in common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes"? Yup.
Are 'assault weapons' "dangerous and unusual"? Nope.
Thus, the right to keep and bear arms includes, and the 2nd Amendment protects, the right to possess and use an 'assault weapon'.

And, again, - public safety?

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.... the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Handguns present ~40x more of a threat to public safety than 'assault weapons'
Handguns cannot be constitutionally banned regardless of their effect on same.
Thus, there's no 'public safety' argument for the constitutionally of banning 'assault weapons'.

You laugh at my nuke/mustard gas example but will ask, what is the difference between a WMD and a firearm?

Aside from the obvious?
WMDs are not protected by the 2nd, firearms are (see above).

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, enough with the analogies, we are obviously on two different wavelengths.

Yes.
I understand that arguing it is permissible to ban one aspect of a right because people still have access to the other aspects is Constitutional hooey. You do not.

I'm tired of the novels so i'll keep this short and sweet.
The law says we can bear arms. It doesn't say firearms or pistols or machine guns.

Fortunately that the Court has spoken on this:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
-
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: .... Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Are 'assault weapons' "in common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes"? Yup.
Are 'assault weapons' "dangerous and unusual"? Nope.
Thus, the right to keep and bear arms includes, and the 2nd Amendment protects, the right to possess and use an 'assault weapon'.

And, again, - public safety?

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.... the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Handguns present ~40x more of a threat to public safety than 'assault weapons'
Handguns cannot be constitutionally banned regardless of their effect on same.
Thus, there's no 'public safety' argument for the constitutionally of banning 'assault weapons'.

You laugh at my nuke/mustard gas example but will ask, what is the difference between a WMD and a firearm?

Aside from the obvious?
WMDs are not protected by the 2nd, firearms are (see above).

Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?

Are 'assault weapons' "in common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes"?
Are 'assault weapons' "dangerous and unusual"?

How is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?