• 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!

Florida group to initiate an "assault weapons" ban on the ballot.

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,467
Reaction score
1,361
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
As the title states, there's a group in Flotida trying to get an amendment on the 2020 ballot that will ban so called assault weapons. If this gets on the ballot, I'm obviously going to vote no. But I'm posting this to spread the word and hopefully we can stop the petition befpre it can even gain enough votes. More info linked in the video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6FskBexDyyw&feature=em-uploademail
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,486
Reaction score
80,943
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
what the bannerrhoid petition will do

sell lots and lots of the firearms that the turds want to ban-which makes them MORE COMMONLY USED

get the NRA more members

cause the idiots who support this nonsense to get beat in purple congressional districts
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,486
Reaction score
80,943
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
bans any rifle that is semi auto that can hold more than ten rounds. Clearly violates Heller. The people pushing this should be deemed enemies of our constitution.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This kind of mob rule is exactly what The Constitution was designed to defeat.
 

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,608
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As the title states, there's a group in Flotida trying to get an amendment on the 2020 ballot that will ban so called assault weapons. If this gets on the ballot, I'm obviously going to vote no. But I'm posting this to spread the word and hopefully we can stop the petition befpre it can even gain enough votes. More info linked in the video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6FskBexDyyw&feature=em-uploademail

It sounds like it could be a real money maker. It all the potential for a real celebrity draw. I wonder what kind of salary the organizer will draw. For some people, whether the measure passes or not is inconsequential. There's money to be made. Just ask the people who helped Beta O'Rourke spend his $70 million.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,591
Reaction score
13,242
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
As the title states, there's a group in Flotida trying to get an amendment on the 2020 ballot that will ban so called assault weapons. If this gets on the ballot, I'm obviously going to vote no. But I'm posting this to spread the word and hopefully we can stop the petition befpre it can even gain enough votes. More info linked in the video.
Erm... You can't stop a petition.

Either they are going to get the required 766,200 signatures, or they aren't.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,591
Reaction score
13,242
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I hope someone takes it to the supreme Court. It's dumb to ban guns based on appearance.
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,622
Reaction score
6,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.

They've not upheld any such thing.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,134
Reaction score
10,795
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.

Well, then I wish the court would follow the Constitution.
And assault rifle isn't a type of firearm.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As the title states, there's a group in Flotida trying to get an amendment on the 2020 ballot that will ban so called assault weapons. If this gets on the ballot, I'm obviously going to vote no. But I'm posting this to spread the word and hopefully we can stop the petition befpre it can even gain enough votes. More info linked in the video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6FskBexDyyw&feature=em-uploademail

The last time California added a new prohibited thing a ma jigg, "black rifles" began selling by the pallet. A little pip squeak out door 15 lane shooting range sold 1500 of them. Bass Pro had lines and waiting lists.

That's what will happen. Thousands and thousands of new guns in the hands of people who do not believe they government has the right to disarm them. After the San Bernardo shootings, 134,000 guns were sold that month because people assumed the left would make another run at firearm prohibition.

Ask a cop how he would feel going to someone's door and demanding they turn in their guns! There ain't enough Kevlar in California to pull that off!
 

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,467
Reaction score
1,361
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Erm... You can't stop a petition.

Either they are going to get the required 766,200 signatures, or they aren't.

You can by having enough people to not sign it.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,486
Reaction score
80,943
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The SCOTUS has routinely upheld the ability of states and municipalities to ban certain types of firearms, even after Heller. Even that ruling made it very clear that bans on specific types of firearms (such as assault rifles) are constitutionally sound.

that's not truthful. the truthful claim is that the Supreme court has yet to take up such a case.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,486
Reaction score
80,943
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,591
Reaction score
13,242
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You can by having enough people to not sign it.
And again.... You can't stop people from signing it.

Again, the threshold is 766,200 signatures -- in a state with around 20 million residents. Chances are pretty good they will get enough signatures. Enjoy your next election.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,591
Reaction score
13,242
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Well, then I wish the court would follow the Constitution.
And assault rifle isn't a type of firearm.
The Constitution is quite clear that governments are empowered to regulate firearms. There are limits to those regulations, but there is really no question that assault rifle bans are legal.

You do not have an unlimited right to own any type of firearm you want, just because you want it. Again, even the most radically pro-gun-rights ruling in US history (Heller) explicitly recognized that power.

And yes, an assault rifle is a type of firearm. Please spare us the self-serving semantic nonsense, kthx.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,486
Reaction score
80,943
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And again.... You can't stop people from signing it.

Again, the threshold is 766,200 signatures -- in a state with around 20 million residents. Chances are pretty good they will get enough signatures. Enjoy your next election.

I hope it goes on the ballot-it will sell thousands upon thousands of those guns in Florida. Lots of people who normally wouldn't buy one will-giving them a vested interest to oppose such a moronic law and vote against the scumbag politicians who support such idiocy. And the more modern sporting rifles sold, the harder it is for the gun haters to claim those firearms aren't "in common use".

These sort of bannerrhoid actions often help the pro freedom cause
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,486
Reaction score
80,943
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Constitution is quite clear that governments are empowered to regulate firearms. There are limits to those regulations, but there is really no question that assault rifle bans are legal.

You do not have an unlimited right to own any type of firearm you want, just because you want it. Again, even the most radically pro-gun-rights ruling in US history (Heller) explicitly recognized that power.

And yes, an assault rifle is a type of firearm. Please spare us the self-serving semantic nonsense, kthx.

if its so clear-please cite. What is clear is that the FDR administration pretended that the commerce clause-a clause that was not so interpreted for 140 years-actually was intended to do something not a single founder ever said it could. And you apparently haven't a clue what an assault rifle is

what Heller recognized was that UNUSUALLY dangerous weapons may not be protected by the second amendment. GO ahead and try to prove that a semi auto rifle can rationally meet that test
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,134
Reaction score
10,795
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Constitution is quite clear that governments are empowered to regulate firearms. There are limits to those regulations, but there is really no question that assault rifle bans are legal.
Well the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. Banning any rifle that works and functions just like any other rifle is infringing.

Saying that something is legal is making a legalistic argument. At one time owning slaves was legal.

You do not have an unlimited right to own any type of firearm you want, just because you want it.
well I'm not arguing for the right to own an unusual weapon, it's a rifle just like any other rifle.

This is the disconnect in this discussion. Assault weapons are not a different type of firearm they are just rifles.

And I'm sorry banning a rifle because it's black or because it looks scary doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.


Again, even the most radically pro-gun-rights ruling in US history (Heller) explicitly recognized that power.
So what?

And yes, an assault rifle is a type of firearm. Please spare us the self-serving semantic nonsense, kthx.
Dismissing a fundamental component as semantics in an argument that is about pure semantics is dishonest on your part.

The term assault weapon does not describe a type of fire arm. It describes a list of features on a firearm.

This definition is the core of this discussion. You can't dismiss it as semantics and be able to logically participate in the discussion.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,591
Reaction score
13,242
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Well the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Those of us who understand the Constitution also know that the 2nd Amendment was originally only a restriction on the federal government; state and local governments were empowered to regulate firearms, within the confines of their own state constitutions (many of which did not explicitly protect those rights until recent times). Although this was technically changed by Heller, from a practical perspective, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states has had almost no effect.

Also, those of us who understand the Constitution know that the protection on rights is not absolute. The 1st Amendment does not stop the government from enforcing libel laws, or outlawing threats, or curtailing the circulation of classified documents. The right to be secure in your home from unreasonable searches does not mean the police cannot enter your home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, or if they see you using illegal drugs in your living room through the bay window.


Banning any rifle that works and functions just like any other rifle is infringing.
Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.


Dismissing a fundamental component as semantics in an argument that is about pure semantics is dishonest on your part.
The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,192
Reaction score
33,074
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Those of us who understand the Constitution also know that the 2nd Amendment was originally only a restriction on the federal government; state and local governments were empowered to regulate firearms, within the confines of their own state constitutions (many of which did not explicitly protect those rights until recent times). Although this was technically changed by Heller, from a practical perspective, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states has had almost no effect.
Also, those of us who understand the Constitution know that the protection on rights is not absolute. The 1st Amendment does not stop the government from enforcing libel laws, or outlawing threats, or curtailing the circulation of classified documents. The right to be secure in your home from unreasonable searches does not mean the police cannot enter your home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, or if they see you using illegal drugs in your living room through the bay window.

Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.


The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.

Bolded nitpick (unless I've misread you): The second decision in that chain, McDonald v. Chicago, was the one to incorporate the 2nd.

District of Columbia v. Heller
, didn't have the opportunity to rule on incorporation given D.C.'s status.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,486
Reaction score
80,943
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Those of us who understand the Constitution also know that the 2nd Amendment was originally only a restriction on the federal government; state and local governments were empowered to regulate firearms, within the confines of their own state constitutions (many of which did not explicitly protect those rights until recent times). Although this was technically changed by Heller, from a practical perspective, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states has had almost no effect.

Also, those of us who understand the Constitution know that the protection on rights is not absolute. The 1st Amendment does not stop the government from enforcing libel laws, or outlawing threats, or curtailing the circulation of classified documents. The right to be secure in your home from unreasonable searches does not mean the police cannot enter your home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, or if they see you using illegal drugs in your living room through the bay window.



Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.



The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.

you are correct in some sense-the bill of rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal
government

restrictions on speech are USE BASED, not possession based. Applying slander or libel to guns is incorrect. It is better compared by saying the second amendment does not protect menacing nor assault with a deadly weapon.

claiming that the second amendment stops its restriction on the federal government based on a certain rate of fire is intellectually wanting
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,622
Reaction score
6,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this is Constitutional? What about semiautomatic rifles that fire cartridges that include rimfire, pistol, intermediate or rifle-caliber cartridges?

The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.

The entire definition (and subsequent morphing of the definitions) of "assault weapon" is a semantic game.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,134
Reaction score
10,795
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, what it says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/B]
Who's right? Or to put it another way, the right of whom?



Those of us who understand the Constitution also know that the 2nd Amendment was originally only a restriction on the federal government; state and local governments were empowered to regulate firearms, within the confines of their own state constitutions (many of which did not explicitly protect those rights until recent times). Although this was technically changed by Heller, from a practical perspective, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states has had almost no effect.
Except the tenth amendment.

Also, those of us who understand the Constitution know that the protection on rights is not absolute. The 1st Amendment does not stop the government from enforcing libel laws, or outlawing threats, or curtailing the circulation of classified documents. The right to be secure in your home from unreasonable searches does not mean the police cannot enter your home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, or if they see you using illegal drugs in your living room through the bay window.
yes... Do tedious... Limits to our liberties blah blah blah.

We aren't talking about banning something particularly more harmful then any other rifle.

See this is why the nomenclature of assault weapon is so important. I could say a .36 cal double action revolver is a mega ultra murder weapon but that doesn't have any bearings on it's actually function.

That's essentially what you are doing by saying a rifle is an assault weapon.

In order to limit liberties you have to present reasons. And because it's a scary scary boom boom isn't good enough.



Incorrect. Banning all rifles is unconstitutional; banning "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges" is constitutional.
That isn't what an assault weapon is.



The classification of an assault rifle is based on physical properties of the firearm. Those physical properties are not wished away by semantic games.
what properties?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,591
Reaction score
13,242
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Where in the Constitution does it say that this is Constitutional?
The Constitution does not outline every single precise exact detail. That's why we have this crazy thing called "jurisprudence."

I'm quite confident that I have quoted the relevant sections of Heller to you, more than once. Your inability to learn basic facts about constitutional law is not charming.


What about semiautomatic rifles that fire cartridges that include rimfire, pistol, intermediate or rifle-caliber cartridges?
The US Army was able to define "assault rifles" decades ago. I'm sure you can catch up to the US Army circa 1970.


The entire definition (and subsequent morphing of the definitions) of "assault weapon" is a semantic game.
No, a semantic game would only revolve around a bunch of meaningless words. The definition of an assault rifle is based on properties and functions.

The games are played by people who don't want to accept that the government is, in fact, empowered to regulate firearms.
 
Top Bottom