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

[Uncensored2008]

When the Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", how can an argument be made to "limit" those arms or their use? Which of those words don't you understand?

It isn't a matter of understand, it's one of respect.

The anti-liberty goons understand the words just fine, they simply have no respect for the Constitution and seek to crush it.

This is why you cannot reason with them. Logic has no bearing on a democrat who has utter contempt for the Bill of Rights.

Appealing to the integrity of a party of sociopaths is a waste of time. These are NOT good people. They have an agenda. No amount of fact or reasoned logic will alter their course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Drop all the control measures and allow him to go buy an auto and Orlando is a much sadder story

Who wants to do this?

Why do we keep going backwards... I made a point that shows that gun control is a good thing. Since you don't display acknowledgement of my point on this, i'm forced to dumb it down to its simplest elements which is an example of no control and regulation on weapons. You all keep dodging the fact that the world is safer with the regulations preventing Joe Blow from buying an automatic weapon at a local gun store.

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When the Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", how can an argument be made to "limit" those arms or their use? Which of those words don't you understand?

Very simply... Our lawmakers have the right to decide what is and is not a legal arms.

A power limited by the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCotUS.
As you know.

 

[hunarcy]

When the Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", how can an argument be made to "limit" those arms or their use? Which of those words don't you understand?

Very simply... Our lawmakers have the right to decide what is and is not a legal arms. We have a legal process in place to do this.

I cannot agree. Each city and state have broad latitude to determine who can own firearems within their borders and regulate who owns a firearm based on their actions. Some jurisdictions prohibit everyone under their jurisdiction from owning firearms. That does not make the weapons illegal in and of themselves.

Automatic weapons and even sawn off shotguns are not really illegal, as they both can be purchased legally with a tax stamp.

You make a personal argument not a legal one. I'm an advocate for states rights for most issues. For certain issues it is legal and appropriate for a Federal standards to be made. Personally on this one, I think a federal law defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire.

NO, I presented you with facts. Since you can't defeat facts, you seek to change the argument from "legal arms" to federal vs. state's rights. What you FAIL to realize is that right now, we have federal laws defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire...meaning you are now arguing for the status quo.

 

[Slade3200]

Drop all the control measures and allow him to go buy an auto and Orlando is a much sadder story

Who wants to do this?

Why do we keep going backwards... I made a point that shows that gun control is a good thing. Since you don't display acknowledgement of my point on this, i'm forced to dumb it down to its simplest elements which is an example of no control and regulation on weapons. You all keep dodging the fact that the world is safer with the regulations preventing Joe Blow from buying an automatic weapon at a local gun store.

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial. All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment. It's BS and you know it. Time to be honest and stop the show.

 

[Slade3200]

When the Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", how can an argument be made to "limit" those arms or their use? Which of those words don't you understand?

Very simply... Our lawmakers have the right to decide what is and is not a legal arms.

A power limited by the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCotUS.
As you know.

True, do you object to it? If so then what you object to and what resolution would you like to see?

 

[hunarcy]

Drop all the control measures and allow him to go buy an auto and Orlando is a much sadder story

Who wants to do this?

Why do we keep going backwards... I made a point that shows that gun control is a good thing. Since you don't display acknowledgement of my point on this, i'm forced to dumb it down to its simplest elements which is an example of no control and regulation on weapons. You all keep dodging the fact that the world is safer with the regulations preventing Joe Blow from buying an automatic weapon at a local gun store.

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial. All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment. It's BS and you know it. Time to be honest and stop the show.

And I'm looking for a honest person like you to admit that it's not the firearm that's the problem, it's the people who commit the crimes that are the problem. You can't "legislate" your way out of this, we have to control the behaviors, not the tools. The worst terrorist attack on this nation was done with airplanes. Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer. We must find and deal with those who would harm us, because France, which has the laws that most on the Left want, wasn't able to prevent their attacks. In fact, their attacks were worse than ours, because the criminal terrorists used automatic weapons.

 

[Slade3200]

When the Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", how can an argument be made to "limit" those arms or their use? Which of those words don't you understand?

Very simply... Our lawmakers have the right to decide what is and is not a legal arms. We have a legal process in place to do this.

I cannot agree. Each city and state have broad latitude to determine who can own firearems within their borders and regulate who owns a firearm based on their actions. Some jurisdictions prohibit everyone under their jurisdiction from owning firearms. That does not make the weapons illegal in and of themselves.

Automatic weapons and even sawn off shotguns are not really illegal, as they both can be purchased legally with a tax stamp.

You make a personal argument not a legal one. I'm an advocate for states rights for most issues. For certain issues it is legal and appropriate for a Federal standards to be made. Personally on this one, I think a federal law defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire.

NO, I presented you with facts. Since you can't defeat facts, you seek to change the argument from "legal arms" to federal vs. state's rights. What you FAIL to realize is that right now, we have federal laws defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire...meaning you are now arguing for the status quo.

I am arguing the validity of the status quo. and the fact that further discussion is a responsibility of our leaders and a good thing. Your side is yelling about the left stomping on the constitution and you all wont even discuss gun control because you are scared of the strawman's hidden agenda to ban all guns and disarm America. Its foolish and ridiculous blabber.

 

[Slade3200]

Drop all the control measures and allow him to go buy an auto and Orlando is a much sadder story

Who wants to do this?

Why do we keep going backwards... I made a point that shows that gun control is a good thing. Since you don't display acknowledgement of my point on this, i'm forced to dumb it down to its simplest elements which is an example of no control and regulation on weapons. You all keep dodging the fact that the world is safer with the regulations preventing Joe Blow from buying an automatic weapon at a local gun store.

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial. All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment. It's BS and you know it. Time to be honest and stop the show.

And I'm looking for a honest person like you to admit that it's not the firearm that's the problem, it's the people who commit the crimes that are the problem. You can't "legislate" your way out of this, we have to control the behaviors, not the tools. The worst terrorist attack on this nation was done with airplanes. Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer. We must find and deal with those who would harm us, because France, which has the laws that most on the Left want, wasn't able to prevent their attacks. In fact, their attacks were worse than ours, because the criminal terrorists used automatic weapons.

I can easily admit that, I think you are right on... The problem is with the people shooting the guns. Since that is the problem, we need to be responsible and careful with who we sell guns to and also review the destructive power that these guns have so when the criminals use guns they don't inflict a massive amount of damage. The underlying problem with all the violence is in the people committing the acts. Completely agree and I support any measures that go towards helping that problem.

Now you be honest. The power of the weapons and the ease of access does play a part. Agreed?

 

[hunarcy]

When the Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", how can an argument be made to "limit" those arms or their use? Which of those words don't you understand?

Very simply... Our lawmakers have the right to decide what is and is not a legal arms. We have a legal process in place to do this.

I cannot agree. Each city and state have broad latitude to determine who can own firearems within their borders and regulate who owns a firearm based on their actions. Some jurisdictions prohibit everyone under their jurisdiction from owning firearms. That does not make the weapons illegal in and of themselves.

Automatic weapons and even sawn off shotguns are not really illegal, as they both can be purchased legally with a tax stamp.

You make a personal argument not a legal one. I'm an advocate for states rights for most issues. For certain issues it is legal and appropriate for a Federal standards to be made. Personally on this one, I think a federal law defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire.

NO, I presented you with facts. Since you can't defeat facts, you seek to change the argument from "legal arms" to federal vs. state's rights. What you FAIL to realize is that right now, we have federal laws defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire...meaning you are now arguing for the status quo.

I am arguing the validity of the status quo. and the fact that further discussion is a responsibility of our leaders and a good thing. Your side is yelling about the left stomping on the constitution and you all wont even discuss gun control because you are scared of the strawman's hidden agenda to ban all guns and disarm America. Its foolish and ridiculous blabber.

WE are the leaders of our country, not those guys we send up to represent us. We have 16,000 + "common sense" gun laws already and they aren't stopping crime as the utopian followers on the left predicted. So, they further seek to limit MY rights when I've never done anything worthy of punishment with a firearm. THAT's what I object to...and it's not a strawman hidden agenda.

No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Ban all guns, now

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

 

[hunarcy]

Who wants to do this?

Why do we keep going backwards... I made a point that shows that gun control is a good thing. Since you don't display acknowledgement of my point on this, i'm forced to dumb it down to its simplest elements which is an example of no control and regulation on weapons. You all keep dodging the fact that the world is safer with the regulations preventing Joe Blow from buying an automatic weapon at a local gun store.

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial. All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment. It's BS and you know it. Time to be honest and stop the show.

And I'm looking for a honest person like you to admit that it's not the firearm that's the problem, it's the people who commit the crimes that are the problem. You can't "legislate" your way out of this, we have to control the behaviors, not the tools. The worst terrorist attack on this nation was done with airplanes. Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer. We must find and deal with those who would harm us, because France, which has the laws that most on the Left want, wasn't able to prevent their attacks. In fact, their attacks were worse than ours, because the criminal terrorists used automatic weapons.

I can easily admit that, I think you are right on... The problem is with the people shooting the guns. Since that is the problem, we need to be responsible and careful with who we sell guns to and also review the destructive power that these guns have so when the criminals use guns they don't inflict a massive amount of damage. The underlying problem with all the violence is in the people committing the acts. Completely agree and I support any measures that go towards helping that problem.

Now you be honest. The power of the weapons and the ease of access does play a part. Agreed?

No, the fact that we don't get the mentally ill the health care they need and the fact that criminals are allowed to prey upon us is the real cause. Doesn't it seem odd that these sorts of things didn't happen before the 1960's? In the past, people were allowed to defend themselves, but then came the tide of liberalism that was supposed to "improve" things but only caused things to crumble.

Your response indicates you still want to blame the object. That saddens me.

 

[Brain357]

Why do we keep going backwards... I made a point that shows that gun control is a good thing. Since you don't display acknowledgement of my point on this, i'm forced to dumb it down to its simplest elements which is an example of no control and regulation on weapons. You all keep dodging the fact that the world is safer with the regulations preventing Joe Blow from buying an automatic weapon at a local gun store.

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial. All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment. It's BS and you know it. Time to be honest and stop the show.

And I'm looking for a honest person like you to admit that it's not the firearm that's the problem, it's the people who commit the crimes that are the problem. You can't "legislate" your way out of this, we have to control the behaviors, not the tools. The worst terrorist attack on this nation was done with airplanes. Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer. We must find and deal with those who would harm us, because France, which has the laws that most on the Left want, wasn't able to prevent their attacks. In fact, their attacks were worse than ours, because the criminal terrorists used automatic weapons.

I can easily admit that, I think you are right on... The problem is with the people shooting the guns. Since that is the problem, we need to be responsible and careful with who we sell guns to and also review the destructive power that these guns have so when the criminals use guns they don't inflict a massive amount of damage. The underlying problem with all the violence is in the people committing the acts. Completely agree and I support any measures that go towards helping that problem.

Now you be honest. The power of the weapons and the ease of access does play a part. Agreed?

No, the fact that we don't get the mentally ill the health care they need and the fact that criminals are allowed to prey upon us is the real cause. Doesn't it seem odd that these sorts of things didn't happen before the 1960's? In the past, people were allowed to defend themselves, but then came the tide of liberalism that was supposed to "improve" things but only caused things to crumble.

Your response indicates you still want to blame the object. That saddens me.

In the 1960s high capacity semi autos were very uncommon.

So you want help for the mentally ill? Many don't get the health care they need. What party fights healthcare?

 

[there4eyeM]

There has been an enormous population explosion since the early sixties, so the number of yahoos is greater. Perhaps not the percentage, but the absolute quantity. The question is profiling those characters to whom the appeal of something as efficient as an AR (just for example!) plays into an out of control ego.

 

[hunarcy]

There has been an enormous population explosion since the early sixties, so the number of yahoos is greater. Perhaps not the percentage, but the absolute quantity. The question is profiling those characters to whom the appeal of something as efficient as an AR (just for example!) plays into an out of control ego.

Why did liberals start using habeus corpus to get mentally ill patients out of asylums? Because in their hubris, they thought they knew best what people needed. They emptied the asylums and the asylums were closed and the mentally ill began to populate our streets. Liberals then decided that criminals were being mistreated and they began to try to ensure people weren't effectively punished. Now, we're being preyed upon by the mentally ill and the criminals and people like you say because there's more "yahoos", everyone should have their rights taken away. I'll never understand people like you.

 

[there4eyeM]

There has been an enormous population explosion since the early sixties, so the number of yahoos is greater. Perhaps not the percentage, but the absolute quantity. The question is profiling those characters to whom the appeal of something as efficient as an AR (just for example!) plays into an out of control ego.

Why did liberals start using habeus corpus to get mentally ill patients out of asylums? Because in their hubris, they thought they knew best what people needed. They emptied the asylums and the asylums were closed and the mentally ill began to populate our streets. Liberals then decided that criminals were being mistreated and they began to try to ensure people weren't effectively punished. Now, we're being preyed upon by the mentally ill and the criminals and people like you say because there's more "yahoos", everyone should have their rights taken away. I'll never understand people like you.

What are you babbling about and what are you doing addressing such a message to me? In fact, never mind, don't answer. It doesn't matter and I have no interest in giving remedial thinking training.

 

[hunarcy]

There has been an enormous population explosion since the early sixties, so the number of yahoos is greater. Perhaps not the percentage, but the absolute quantity. The question is profiling those characters to whom the appeal of something as efficient as an AR (just for example!) plays into an out of control ego.

Why did liberals start using habeus corpus to get mentally ill patients out of asylums? Because in their hubris, they thought they knew best what people needed. They emptied the asylums and the asylums were closed and the mentally ill began to populate our streets. Liberals then decided that criminals were being mistreated and they began to try to ensure people weren't effectively punished. Now, we're being preyed upon by the mentally ill and the criminals and people like you say because there's more "yahoos", everyone should have their rights taken away. I'll never understand people like you.

What are you babbling about and what are you doing addressing such a message to me? In fact, never mind, don't answer. It doesn't matter and I have no interest in giving remedial thinking training.

I'm sorry, I thought you were joining into an ongoing conversation on a message board. But, it's obvious that you were hoping to not have to engage in conversation. I won't force you to face your intellectual shortcomings any further, as you obviously have nothing worth reading in your posts.

 

[there4eyeM]

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial. All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment. It's BS and you know it. Time to be honest and stop the show.

And I'm looking for a honest person like you to admit that it's not the firearm that's the problem, it's the people who commit the crimes that are the problem. You can't "legislate" your way out of this, we have to control the behaviors, not the tools. The worst terrorist attack on this nation was done with airplanes. Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer. We must find and deal with those who would harm us, because France, which has the laws that most on the Left want, wasn't able to prevent their attacks. In fact, their attacks were worse than ours, because the criminal terrorists used automatic weapons.

I can easily admit that, I think you are right on... The problem is with the people shooting the guns. Since that is the problem, we need to be responsible and careful with who we sell guns to and also review the destructive power that these guns have so when the criminals use guns they don't inflict a massive amount of damage. The underlying problem with all the violence is in the people committing the acts. Completely agree and I support any measures that go towards helping that problem.

Now you be honest. The power of the weapons and the ease of access does play a part. Agreed?

No, the fact that we don't get the mentally ill the health care they need and the fact that criminals are allowed to prey upon us is the real cause. Doesn't it seem odd that these sorts of things didn't happen before the 1960's? In the past, people were allowed to defend themselves, but then came the tide of liberalism that was supposed to "improve" things but only caused things to crumble.

Your response indicates you still want to blame the object. That saddens me.

In the 1960s high capacity semi autos were very uncommon.

So you want help for the mentally ill? Many don't get the health care they need. What party fights healthcare?

As I recall from the epoch, it was under the Reagan administration that severe cut backs to mental health care seriously set in.

 

[Slade3200]

Very simply... Our lawmakers have the right to decide what is and is not a legal arms. We have a legal process in place to do this.

I cannot agree. Each city and state have broad latitude to determine who can own firearems within their borders and regulate who owns a firearm based on their actions. Some jurisdictions prohibit everyone under their jurisdiction from owning firearms. That does not make the weapons illegal in and of themselves.

Automatic weapons and even sawn off shotguns are not really illegal, as they both can be purchased legally with a tax stamp.

You make a personal argument not a legal one. I'm an advocate for states rights for most issues. For certain issues it is legal and appropriate for a Federal standards to be made. Personally on this one, I think a federal law defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire.

NO, I presented you with facts. Since you can't defeat facts, you seek to change the argument from "legal arms" to federal vs. state's rights. What you FAIL to realize is that right now, we have federal laws defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire...meaning you are now arguing for the status quo.

I am arguing the validity of the status quo. and the fact that further discussion is a responsibility of our leaders and a good thing. Your side is yelling about the left stomping on the constitution and you all wont even discuss gun control because you are scared of the strawman's hidden agenda to ban all guns and disarm America. Its foolish and ridiculous blabber.

WE are the leaders of our country, not those guys we send up to represent us. We have 16,000 + "common sense" gun laws already and they aren't stopping crime as the utopian followers on the left predicted. So, they further seek to limit MY rights when I've never done anything worthy of punishment with a firearm. THAT's what I object to...and it's not a strawman hidden agenda.

No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Ban all guns, now

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

Current gun laws don't stop crimes? How can you possible know that?

 

[Slade3200]

Why do we keep going backwards... I made a point that shows that gun control is a good thing. Since you don't display acknowledgement of my point on this, i'm forced to dumb it down to its simplest elements which is an example of no control and regulation on weapons. You all keep dodging the fact that the world is safer with the regulations preventing Joe Blow from buying an automatic weapon at a local gun store.

And so, you cannot provide an example of anyone who wishes to "drop all the control measures".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tsk tsk.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial. All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment. It's BS and you know it. Time to be honest and stop the show.

And I'm looking for a honest person like you to admit that it's not the firearm that's the problem, it's the people who commit the crimes that are the problem. You can't "legislate" your way out of this, we have to control the behaviors, not the tools. The worst terrorist attack on this nation was done with airplanes. Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer. We must find and deal with those who would harm us, because France, which has the laws that most on the Left want, wasn't able to prevent their attacks. In fact, their attacks were worse than ours, because the criminal terrorists used automatic weapons.

I can easily admit that, I think you are right on... The problem is with the people shooting the guns. Since that is the problem, we need to be responsible and careful with who we sell guns to and also review the destructive power that these guns have so when the criminals use guns they don't inflict a massive amount of damage. The underlying problem with all the violence is in the people committing the acts. Completely agree and I support any measures that go towards helping that problem.

Now you be honest. The power of the weapons and the ease of access does play a part. Agreed?

No, the fact that we don't get the mentally ill the health care they need and the fact that criminals are allowed to prey upon us is the real cause. Doesn't it seem odd that these sorts of things didn't happen before the 1960's? In the past, people were allowed to defend themselves, but then came the tide of liberalism that was supposed to "improve" things but only caused things to crumble.

Your response indicates you still want to blame the object. That saddens me.

My response showed understanding of both sides of the issue. Yours shows understanding of only one side. That's the problem and the sad part

 

[hunarcy]

I cannot agree. Each city and state have broad latitude to determine who can own firearems within their borders and regulate who owns a firearm based on their actions. Some jurisdictions prohibit everyone under their jurisdiction from owning firearms. That does not make the weapons illegal in and of themselves.

Automatic weapons and even sawn off shotguns are not really illegal, as they both can be purchased legally with a tax stamp.

You make a personal argument not a legal one. I'm an advocate for states rights for most issues. For certain issues it is legal and appropriate for a Federal standards to be made. Personally on this one, I think a federal law defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire.

NO, I presented you with facts. Since you can't defeat facts, you seek to change the argument from "legal arms" to federal vs. state's rights. What you FAIL to realize is that right now, we have federal laws defining the minimum standard of what is legal and not legal is appropriate and the states can further modify if they desire...meaning you are now arguing for the status quo.

I am arguing the validity of the status quo. and the fact that further discussion is a responsibility of our leaders and a good thing. Your side is yelling about the left stomping on the constitution and you all wont even discuss gun control because you are scared of the strawman's hidden agenda to ban all guns and disarm America. Its foolish and ridiculous blabber.

WE are the leaders of our country, not those guys we send up to represent us. We have 16,000 + "common sense" gun laws already and they aren't stopping crime as the utopian followers on the left predicted. So, they further seek to limit MY rights when I've never done anything worthy of punishment with a firearm. THAT's what I object to...and it's not a strawman hidden agenda.

No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Ban all guns, now

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

Current gun laws don't stop crimes? How can you possible know that?

Crimes continue. Look at Chicago on any given weekend.