It Should Only Be Against The Law To Do Bad Stuff

[Toggle Almendro]

But some people say owning nukes is a right same for fully automatic weapons isnt that too far?

I don't know about "too far", but their statement is factually incorrect. The people's right to keep and bear arms only covers small arms.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Some people feel threatened by folks running about with AR-15s without any kind of vetting or accountability or training requirements, etc.

That is incorrect. No one is threatened by the brand name of a hunting rifle.

The people that you are talking about oppose AR-15s because they hate America and think that it is fun to violate other people's civil liberties.

The impetus to put restrictions on the where, when and how regarding AR-15s and their place in society is driven by the same type of threat identification that you say is psychologically harming the bank teller.

That is incorrect. There is no comparison between "owning an ordinary hunting rifle like an AR-15" and "assaulting a bank teller".

Exactly. If someone owns an AR-15, that isn't hurting anyone.

True.

And if they carry it into a bank, that isn't hurting anyone either.

I'm not sure about that one, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct.

And if they carry it into a bank, that isn't hurting anyone either. And if they point it at the teller, that still isn't hurting anyone.

That is incorrect. Assault is harmful.

And if they then say ""Open the vault. Now!" they still aren't hurting anyone.

That is incorrect. Armed robbery is harmful.

So where's the crime?

Off hand, it appears that you've described assault and armed robbery.

 

[Questerr]

Correct. The right of free people to keep and bear arms was already limited to small arms. The Founding Fathers merely kept it as-is.



Cite? (And remember that the mere fact that "something is allowed" is not evidence that it is protected by the people's right to keep and bear arms.)



Cite? (And remember that the mere fact that "something is allowed" is not evidence that it is protected by the people's right to keep and bear arms.)



Because they are not small arms.

Also because they pose a danger to society.



Yes.

So you are arguing that the Founders would have supported laws banning cannons as constitutional?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

That is incorrect. No one is threatened by the brand name of a hunting rifle.

The people that you are talking about oppose AR-15s because they hate America and think that it is fun to violate other people's civil liberties.

You are welcome to that opinion, naturally.

I can only assume that the reason you think such people hate America and think that it is fun to violate other people's civil liberties is because you hate America and think that it is fun to project nonsense cartoon villain motives onto people rather than develop an awareness of their actual motives.

That is incorrect. Assault is harmful.

Just holding a gun is assault? According to who?

That is incorrect. Armed robbery is harmful.

If all they are doing is holding a gun and saying some words, then they haven't committed any robbery. We are talking about a situation where they haven't taken any money, and they haven't hurt anyone.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

So you are arguing that the Founders would have supported laws banning cannons as constitutional?

I do not see why they would think that federal laws outlawing civilian possession of cannon would violate the Second Amendment.

They would definitely have thought that federal laws outlawing civilian possession of cannon would violate the Tenth Amendment.

They may also have thought that state laws outlawing civilian possession of cannon would not pass muster with rational basis review.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You are welcome to that opinion, naturally.

I stated a fact, not an opinion.

This is an opinion: I think it is shameful that gun control advocates maliciously try to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

I can only assume that the reason you think such people hate America and think that it is fun to violate other people's civil liberties is because you hate America and think that it is fun to project nonsense cartoon villain motives onto people rather than develop an awareness of their actual motives.

Bad assumption.

The reason why I think that gun control advocates think that it is fun to violate other people's civil liberties is because it is true and I am observant.

No one can provide any motivation for their efforts to outlaw ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15, other than the fact that they just think that it is fun to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

Just holding a gun is assault? According to who?

Pointing a gun at someone is assault. According to the law.

If all they are doing is holding a gun and saying some words, then they haven't committed any robbery. We are talking about a situation where they haven't taken any money, and they haven't hurt anyone.

That is incorrect. If they assault someone and demand access to money, they are committing armed robbery.

 

[Questerr]

I do not see why they would think that federal laws outlawing civilian possession of cannon would violate the Second Amendment.

They would definitely have thought that federal laws outlawing civilian possession of cannon would violate the Tenth Amendment.

They may also have thought that state laws outlawing civilian possession of cannon would not pass muster with rational basis review.

That’s a lot of jumping around and dancing to avoid saying the founders would have supported a right to own cannons and believed it was protected.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I stated a fact, not an opinion.

This is an opinion: I think it is shameful that gun control advocates maliciously try to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

You obviously don't actually think that. No one actually thinks that. You are just saying that you think that because you hate America and like to declare things as being "shameful" for fun.

Bad assumption.

Actually. I just observed that my assumption was correct.

The reason why I think that gun control advocates think that it is fun to violate other people's civil liberties is because it is true and I am observant.

I as well am observant. I observed the truth that you don't believe the things you are saying, and that you are only saying them because you hate America and like to engage in self-righteous grandstanding for fun.

No one can provide any motivation for their efforts to outlaw ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15, other than the fact that they just think that it is fun to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

Could you cite an example where someone opposed to AR-15s gave the reason that "I just think it's fun to violate people's civil liberties for no reason?"

There were 28 gun related deaths in the UK in 2022. There were over 48,000 gun related deaths in the US in 2022.

Perhaps you think it is just a coincidence that folks in the UK are orders of magnitude less likely to get killed by guns, and that it has nothing to do with their gun regulations? Perhaps you also think that everyone else shares your bizarre "its just a coincidence" theory, and that people are just pretending to be concerned with their safety and the safety of those around them as an excuse to engaging in their hobby of violate people's civil liberties for no reason?

You delusional conspiracy thinking does not represent reality.

Pointing a gun at someone is assault. According to the law.

No. It varies by state, but assault pretty much universally involves deliberately causing physical injury, or attacking someone with demonstrable intent to cause physical injury.

Here is an example from New York:

§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.

A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:

1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or

2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.


The intent of an armed robbery is not to cause physical injury, but rather to coerce compliance in order to take their ill-gotten booty. Those are separate crimes.

That is incorrect. If they assault someone and demand access to money, they are committing armed robbery.

If all they are doing is holding a gun and saying some words, that isn't hurting anybody in and of itself.

It doesn't become criminal until you start projecting possible scenarios where they might shoot someone in the future. The same with drunk driving. As long as you make it home safe and no one gets hurt, drunk driving doesn't hurt anyone. The laws against it come from social projection of the impact of drunk driving on the likelihood of someone getting hurt.

And the same is true of gun regulations.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You obviously don't actually think that.

Yes I do. I always believe the truth.

No one actually thinks that.

That is incorrect. Everyone who believes the truth thinks that.

You are just saying that you think that because you hate America and like to declare things as being "shameful" for fun.

That is incorrect. It is because I value civil liberties and object to people violating them.

Actually. I just observed that my assumption was correct.

This observation is yet another thing that you are wrong about.

I as well am observant. I observed the truth that you don't believe the things you are saying, and that you are only saying them because you hate America and like to engage in self-righteous grandstanding for fun.

More things that you are wrong about. I always believe the truth.

Could you cite an example where someone opposed to AR-15s gave the reason that "I just think it's fun to violate people's civil liberties for no reason?"

No. But I can (again) point out the fact that no one can provide any alternative motivation for outlawing the brand name of a gun.

There were 28 gun related deaths in the UK in 2022. There were over 48,000 gun related deaths in the US in 2022.

I see you have an interest in irrelevant trivia. Here's another one:
Mount Everest is 884,890 centimeters high.

Perhaps you think it is just a coincidence that folks in the UK are orders of magnitude less likely to get killed by guns, and that it has nothing to do with their gun regulations?

I don't give any thought to the fact that British murder victims are killed with other kinds of weapons.

They are just as dead no matter what kind of weapon is used to kill them.

Perhaps you also think that everyone else shares your bizarre "its just a coincidence" theory,

I do not have any such theory.

and that people are just pretending to be concerned with their safety and the safety of those around them as an excuse to engaging in their hobby of violate people's civil liberties for no reason?

That is close to the truth.

But I would question whether they are even pretending really. For the most part gun control people don't even try to pretend to care about people. They just strive to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

You delusional conspiracy thinking does not represent reality.

There is nothing delusional about my thinking. Everything I said is true. That is why no one can point out any errors in my posts.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

No. It varies by state, but assault pretty much universally involves deliberately causing physical injury, or attacking someone with demonstrable intent to cause physical injury.

Nonsense.

Here is an example from New York:
§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Statutes that disregard reality are a common occurrence when leftists legislate.

The intent of an armed robbery is not to cause physical injury, but rather to coerce compliance in order to take their ill-gotten booty. Those are separate crimes.

Very good. That is the first correct thing that you've said.

If all they are doing is holding a gun and saying some words, that isn't hurting anybody in and of itself.

It is if they are assaulting people and demanding access to their possessions.

It doesn't become criminal until you start projecting possible scenarios where they might shoot someone in the future.

No, it becomes criminal when they start assaulting people and robbing them.

The same with drunk driving. As long as you make it home safe and no one gets hurt, drunk driving doesn't hurt anyone. The laws against it come from social projection of the impact of drunk driving on the likelihood of someone getting hurt.
And the same is true of gun regulations.

That is incorrect. Laws against the brand name or the style of a gun have nothing to do with the likelihood of harm. The only reason for such laws is to maliciously violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

That’s a lot of jumping around and dancing to avoid saying the founders would have supported a right to own cannons and believed it was protected.

I was merely stating the truth. If you want to limit the scope of my response, here is the main point:
I do not see why they would think that laws outlawing civilian possession of cannon would violate the Second Amendment.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Statutes that disregard reality are a common occurrence when leftists legislate.

How is it disregarding reality? Assaulting someone generally means trying to hurt them.

Do y'all over on the right cry "assault" every time someone misgenders you or something?

That is incorrect. Laws against the brand name or the style of a gun have nothing to do with the likelihood of harm. The only reason for such laws is to maliciously violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

I haven't seen a single person giving that as their reason for wanting to regulate AR-15s. It appears that you are misinformed.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Maybe we should ban all guns for public safety.

But why? Owning guns doesn't make one a bad person, and as the title of this thread states it should only be against the law to be a bad person, to do the sort of stuff that makes one a bad person.

 

[element94]

Its the criminals who are responsible for the dead children, not the Republicans or the NRA.

They both make it easier, not more difficult, and continue to do nothing after each mass murder, so they're complicit in my, and many, many others' opinions.

 

[DebateChallenge]

They both make it easier, not more difficult, and continue to do nothing after each mass murder, so they're complicit in my, and many, many others' opinions.

So I suppose you can blame the car companies who manufacture and sell the cars that the shooters drive to get to the places where they do their mass shootings. Such companies, by providing transportation to the killers, do make it easier for them to mass kill after all.

 

[element94]

No the biggest problem is that we have people that do such stuff, and we let them run loose.

What are you going to do with those without any priors? Why, make it easy for them to get a high capacity magazine war-type weapon to mow down children with ease, of course!

 

[DebateChallenge]

What are you going to do with those without any priors? Why, make it easy for them to get a high capacity magazine war-type weapon to mow down children with ease, of course!

No, people who are going to commit mass killings, all too often show signs that they will before they do it, even if they don't have a prior record. Nikolas Cruz showed signs. James Eagan Holmes showed signs. Yet nobody did anything about it. That was the mistake.

 

[element94]

An AR-15 is not a war-type rifle, an M16 is.

More BS. It's designed like the war weapons with, fortunately, some limitations. The wounds they inflict are just as bad, especially on a child!
As I've said, you can't predict what someone without any priors is going to do, so why take the chance of more mass murdered children by having easy access to war-style weapons that have no sane use in a civilized society?

 

[element94]

No, people who are going to commit mass killings, all too often show signs that they will before they do it, even if they don't have a prior record. Nikolas Cruz showed signs. James Eagan Holmes showed signs. Yet nobody did anything about it. That was the mistake.

Not true in every case. That has also not proven to be a stoppable marker in every case. So, again, why make it easier? We do not need these ridiculous mass killing implements in a civilized society. You people must long for a modern wild west.

 

[element94]

How many children were killed at the DNC?

Planned Parenthood mobile clinic offers free abortions, vasectomies near DNC in Chicago

A Planned Parenthood mobile clinic located near the Democratic National Convention in Chicago advertised free medication abortions, vasectomies and emergency contraception.

www.nbcchicago.com

???????????
I would say zero, since I haven't heard other wise.

 

[element94]

But why? Owning guns doesn't make one a bad person, and as the title of this thread states it should only be against the law to be a bad person, to do the sort of stuff that makes one a bad person.

That was simply a snide reply to something equally ridiculous.

 

[DebateChallenge]

More BS. It's designed like the war weapons with, fortunately, some limitations.

Wrong, the M16 is a full auto and the AR-15 is not. They shoot the same caliber bullet, yes, but such a round is also commonly used in hunting and there are many rounds that are way way more powerful. The .30-06 round which is significantly more powerful was used WWII as the standard rifle round for the front line soldier but it started out as a medium game hunting round and was adopted by the Army.

The wounds they inflict are just as bad, especially on a child!

As I said, there are many rounds that are far more powerful than the 5.56 and can do much more damage.

As I've said, you can't predict what someone without any priors is going to do, so why take the chance of more mass murdered children by having easy access to war-style weapons that have no sane use in a civilized society?

See post #442.

 

[element94]

So I suppose you can blame the car companies who manufacture and sell the cars that the shooters drive to get to the places where they do their mass shootings. Such companies, by providing transportation to the killers, do make it easier for them to mass kill after all.

Cars aren't specifically designed to kill things. They are designed to get people from one place to another, and they have many safety features.

 

[element94]

No, people who are going to commit mass killings, all too often show signs that they will before they do it, even if they don't have a prior record. Nikolas Cruz showed signs. James Eagan Holmes showed signs. Yet nobody did anything about it. That was the mistake.

Right. So, let's not make it any easier for them to rack up more carnage numbers.

 

[element94]

Wrong, the M16 is a full auto and the AR-15 is not. They shoot the same caliber bullet, yes, but such a round is also commonly used in hunting and there are many rounds that are way way more powerful. The .30-06 round which is significantly more powerful was used WWII as the standard rifle round for the front line soldier but it started out as a medium game hunting round and was adopted by the Army.

As I said, there are many rounds that are far more powerful than the 5.56 and can do much more damage.

See post #442.

I already covered all that. Can you give me a good reason these high capacity magazine, war-style weapons are needed at all in a civilized society?