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

[hunarcy]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

 

[hunarcy]

I have to go for today, but thank you for a very civil conversation. I hope we run into each other again.

 

[davecmarino]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

The fire rate is already set, you are a jackass. It is a semi-auto rifle. One round fired for each pull of the trigger.

My how stupid you fucktards are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

Im looking for people like you to admit that control measures are beneficial.

Some are. Some aren't. You agree, yes?

All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment.

Certainly you agree that some on the left seek exactly that. Yes?

 

[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.

True, do you object to it?

As I argued the position well enough for you to accept it, my agreement is obvious.

If so then what you object to and what resolution would you like to see?

I fully and happily accept any gun control law that does two things:
- Prevents criminals from getting guns
- Does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
Everything else must go.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

As I argued the position well enough for you to accept it, my agreement is obvious.

If so then what you object to and what resolution would you like to see?

I fully and happily accept any gun control law that does two things:
- Prevents criminals from getting guns
- Does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
Everything else must go.

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.

As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.

Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Did you really think the expectation was to stop ALL crimes?

 

[Slade3200]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

 

[Slade3200]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

The fire rate is already set, you are a jackass. It is a semi-auto rifle. One round fired for each pull of the trigger.

My how stupid you fucktards are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, what a pleasure this guy is to talk with. Thanks for joining the conversation... Now kindly fuck off

 

[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.

Some are. Some aren't. You agree, yes?

All you guys yell is that the left is trying to take your guns away and erase the 2nd Amendment.

Certainly you agree that some on the left seek exactly that. Yes?

Agreed and agreed. It's easy to focus on the talking points of the extremists form both sides to demonize others that support more common sense measures. It's unfortunate.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Tim McVeigh for example)

 

[there4eyeM]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Ti McVeigh for example)

It is the immediacy and facility of high performance firearms that some people criticize and concentrate on. We may not agree with it, but it does invite consideration.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Ti McVeigh for example)

It is the immediacy and facility of high performance firearms that some people criticize and concentrate on. We may not agree with it, but it does invite consideration.

I understand all of that but it is absolute lunacy to believe that the solution is more laws to restrict the rights of the law abiding. There are already untold MILLIONS of these weapons and high capacity magazines already in circulation.

Not even an effort towards total confiscation would have any effect at all on the next series of mass shootings in the US.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would like to see testimony from at least one CONVICTED MURDERER who claims that any more or ANY better written laws would have PREVENTED the murder (s)

 

[Slade3200]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Tim McVeigh for example)

Of course if somebody has the time, resources and determination they can get their hands on most anything and cause harm. But there are also criminals that act spontaneously or ones that are limited by resources that get deterred by our laws. Look at his kid that tried to kill trump last weekend. Great example. Had he been able to easily go buy a gun and carry it at the rally, Trump and possibly others would likely be dead.

Remove regulations and make an Uzi as accessible as a pistol and put those in more criminals hands. End result is going to be more damage and death. I don't understand how you deny this.

 

[Slade3200]

I would like to see testimony from at least one CONVICTED MURDERER who claims that any more or ANY better written laws would have PREVENTED the murder (s)

Again, crimes will happen regardless, it is the individuals committing them, not he guns. But give these individuals easy access to more powerful weapons. Double the amount of shots they have In the two magazines they are carrilying, etc... You have more potential for more damage

 

[Chuz Life]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Tim McVeigh for example)

Of course if somebody has the time, resources and determination they can get their hands on most anything and cause harm. But there are also criminals that act spontaneously or ones that are limited by resources that get deterred by our laws. Look at his kid that tried to kill trump last weekend. Great example. Had he been able to easily go buy a gun and carry it at the rally, Trump and possibly others would likely be dead.

Remove regulations and make an Uzi as accessible as a pistol and put those in more criminals hands. End result is going to be more damage and death. I don't understand how you deny this.

Laws like thise you are fighting for will only serve to discourage access to a small percentage of a specific kind of criminal. The vast majority of the other kinds of criminals either already have their weapons or the know how to get them on the streets.

 

[Slade3200]

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

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Tim McVeigh for example)

Of course if somebody has the time, resources and determination they can get their hands on most anything and cause harm. But there are also criminals that act spontaneously or ones that are limited by resources that get deterred by our laws. Look at his kid that tried to kill trump last weekend. Great example. Had he been able to easily go buy a gun and carry it at the rally, Trump and possibly others would likely be dead.

Remove regulations and make an Uzi as accessible as a pistol and put those in more criminals hands. End result is going to be more damage and death. I don't understand how you deny this.

Laws like thise you are fighting for will only serve to discourage access to a small percentage of a specific kind of criminal. The vast majority of the other kinds of criminals either already have their weapons or the know how to get them on the streets.

Where do you get these stats from? Do you agree with my assessment of the Trump/Vegas kid situation?

 

[hazlnut]

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

Who cares what you call it -- it's your way to compensate for your small dick. Period.

It's not for hunting.

Or home protection.

Zombie apocalypse is a fantasy tv show so you won't need an AR for that.

Hmmmm.

What could it be for? Why would you need something that serves no practical purpose except making weak and frightened people feel big and strong.

micophallus.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?