"You don't need an AR15..." (1 Viewer)

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Yes, you are ignorant on the subject, wrap you brain around the following:
All AR's are semiautomatic rifles.
AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, the original designers of the AR15.
AR15's are Not Assault Rifles
AR's account for only a tiny portion of shootings hence banning them is ludicrous.

Every single one of those is a red herring.

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Every single one of those is a red herring.

As I said, you have nothing left to add.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Every single one of those is a red herring.

are you going to tell us how congress can ban a rifle that is commonly used that shoots an intermediate cartridge from a closed bolt semi auto mechanism and normally comes with 20-30 round magazines and not ban another rifle that shoots an intermediate cartridge using a closed bolt semi auto mechanism and usually comes with 15/30 round magazines?


are you one of those second amendment revisionists who pretends that as long as you can own some type of firearm, congress or the federal government can ban all sorts of firearms? (in other words you twist the bill of rights into an examination of what we can do vs what the government was never given any powers to do?)

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

To someone that seems to know nothing about firearms I am sure it would be stupid. Lesson 2.:
Firearms do not indiscriminately do anything, they are inanimate objects and it takes a person to operate them, meaning they shoot when and where the operator choses.

When you run out of things to add, throw in nukes, me thinks you are finished here...............

I was talking about grenade launchers. A grenade launcher is a type of firearm. A grenade launcher is an indiscriminate firearm, as it induces a great deal of collateral damage.

For someone who tries to scold someone else as "ignorant," you sure are projecting quite a bit of your own.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

An AR-15 IS a semi-auto rifle, so no, they are not synonymous. That is like saying a clot 45 is not a hand gun. You are the one that is either completely ignorant or dishonest.

An AR-15 fires one round every time you pull the trigger, no more, no less, that is the definition of a semi-automatic rifle.

It is an imprecise method of referring to the weapon so as to make a rhetorical point. I'm not saying that an AR15 is not a semi automatic rifle, i'm saying that AR15 is not synonymous with "semi automatic rifle".

 

[Absentglare]

"You don't need an AR15..."

so tell me-how do you write a law that would withstand the courts that bans AR-15s but not other center fire semi auto rifles that use a detachable magazine?

You continue to prove you haven't a clue about the terms that one has to understand to intelligently discuss this issue

I don't care, the point is that some guns can be banned and those bans can remain constitutional. I don't care if the AR15 is banned or not, but the argument that banning it would be unconstitutional is stillborn.

 

[Goshin]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

I didn't say that the will of the people redefine the constitution, rather; i am deferring to the judicial branch, in particular the supreme court.

I don't think the founders were concerned that the BoR would be the only safeguard for our freedoms.

The Supreme Court, which is appointed by the President, who is elected by the majority, and confirmed by the Senate, which is elected by a majority... and which court and its appointees has become highly political in recent decades, as its power has grown far beyond its original concept.


The mere fact that the "interpretation" of an enumerated right might hinge on the appointment of who replaces Scalia, which depends on who becomes the next POTUS, reveals that we're already in a sad state of affairs regarding the protection the BoR was SUPPOSED to afford to The People...

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

I was talking about grenade launchers. A grenade launcher is a type of firearm. A grenade launcher is an indiscriminate firearm, as it induces a great deal of collateral damage.

For someone who tries to scold someone else as "ignorant," you sure are projecting quite a bit of your own.

You were talking about AR's and brought up grenade launchers in the discussion and I addressed that, the police have them meaning citizens should be able to own them if they wish, I doubt you will get many takers.

 

[Goshin]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

You were talking about AR's and brought up grenade launchers in the discussion and I addressed that, the police have them meaning citizens should be able to own them if they wish, I doubt you will get many takers.

Citizens can already own them in many states... I know people who do. Class III as I recall, restricted but not banned. I think the explosive ordinance is restricted more heavily than things like smoke, flares and teargas though.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

I don't care, the point is that some guns can be banned and those bans can remain constitutional. I don't care if the AR15 is banned or not, but the argument that banning it would be unconstitutional is stillborn.

how can some firearms be banned-where does the federal government properly get that power?

 

[Goshin]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

how can some firearms be banned-where does the federal government properly get that power?

Why Turtle, I'm shocked. There's nothing that specifically forbids them to ban specific firearms, so obviously they can do it! Government can do anything it isn't specifically forbidden to do, and it isn't forbidden if we can find a way to make it a "commerce clause" or "general welfare" issue!


:roll:



Well, except for those violent extremists who think "shall not be infringed" actually means what it says...

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Citizens can already own them in many states... I know people who do. Class III as I recall, restricted but not banned. I think the explosive ordinance is restricted more heavily than things like smoke, flares and teargas though.

And yet we do not have a rash of people using grenade launchers in crimes, ......... I wonder why that is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Why Turtle, I'm shocked. There's nothing that specifically forbids them to ban specific firearms, so obviously they can do it! Government can do anything it isn't specifically forbidden to do, and it isn't forbidden if we can find a way to make it a "commerce clause" or "general welfare" issue!


:roll:



Well, except for those violent extremists who think "shall not be infringed" actually means what it says...

lots of citizens have these attitudes

1) the federal government can do anything it wants as long as the court has not stopped it

2) a good government has the power to do A B and C and that alone is sufficient for the government to do A B and C

3) Rights, we don't need no stinkin rights!!

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

No, they weren't that's because they also never granted the Fed the power to regulate firearms. That is NOT an enumerated power.

They weren't explicitly given the power to regulate car emissions or food quality, but yet they have those powers. At the end of the day, it is the governments stated purpose to govern the governed.

 

[Absentglare]

"You don't need an AR15..."

Can you define what capabilities differentiate an AR rifle from any other magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle?

I can tell you there are major differences between a military issued AR and a civilian AR pattern rifle.

Btw, I have an AR 9mm pistol (shortly to become a carbine) that uses the same magazines as my Glock. Should one be banned but not the other simply because it is an AR pattern firearm?

No, i'm not even arguing in favor of the ban, i'm simply acknowledging that an AR15 ban could be consistent with the constitution. It has not yet been challenged by SCOTUS.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Ah, no. So far Absentglare has not responded to that question. Either he's desperately looking for a difference, or he has failed to find one and is therefore ignoring the question. Since there is no difference, I believe it to be the latter. As a result, we can look for more of the same groundless assertions that AR's are bad, just because.

I can assure you that i am in no way, shape, or form desperate here.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

They weren't explicitly given the power to regulate car emissions or food quality, but yet they have those powers. At the end of the day, it is the governments stated purpose to govern the governed.

do you understand how disgustingly statist that tripe is? You appear to have absolutely no love for individual rights and you suggest that people exist to serve the government.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

No, i'm not even arguing in favor of the ban, i'm simply acknowledging that an AR15 ban could be consistent with the constitution. It has not yet been challenged by SCOTUS.

uh that is because there is no federal ban on an AR 15

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

are you going to tell us how congress can ban a rifle that is commonly used that shoots an intermediate cartridge from a closed bolt semi auto mechanism and normally comes with 20-30 round magazines and not ban another rifle that shoots an intermediate cartridge using a closed bolt semi auto mechanism and usually comes with 15/30 round magazines?


are you one of those second amendment revisionists who pretends that as long as you can own some type of firearm, congress or the federal government can ban all sorts of firearms? (in other words you twist the bill of rights into an examination of what we can do vs what the government was never given any powers to do?)

Is this a serious question ?

Here is a serious answer.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

The Supreme Court, which is appointed by the President, who is elected by the majority, and confirmed by the Senate, which is elected by a majority... and which court and its appointees has become highly political in recent decades, as its power has grown far beyond its original concept.


The mere fact that the "interpretation" of an enumerated right might hinge on the appointment of who replaces Scalia, which depends on who becomes the next POTUS, reveals that we're already in a sad state of affairs regarding the protection the BoR was SUPPOSED to afford to The People...

You're free to your opinion but i can see no necessary reason for me to hold it to be true for myself.

I don't think the BoR collapses as soon as a single right is limited in any fashion.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Is this a serious question ?

Here is a serious answer.

this is yet more proof that you really should have learned about this subject before slaking your desires to try to contradict us big bad conservatives and libertarians who constantly bash the idiocy of Democrat Bannerrhoid politicians and their factually bereft followers in the public.

do you realize what a silly bit of diversion you have posted

do you not understand that we have a federal government of enumerated and limited powers

and do you also not recognize that the reason why we have a government that has vastly expanded beyond all reasonable boundaries is because people like you don't care as long as the government does stuff you like, that alone makes their actions "constitutional"

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

You were talking about AR's and brought up grenade launchers in the discussion and I addressed that, the police have them meaning citizens should be able to own them if they wish, I doubt you will get many takers.

The line of discussion we were engaged in was on grenade launchers.

You tried to move the goalposts to AR15, presumably unintentionally. That was your error and you cannot fairly claim that it reflects poorly on me in any meaningful way.

 

[Absentglare]

"You don't need an AR15..."

how can some firearms be banned-where does the federal government properly get that power?

How can anything be banned - where does the government properly get that power ? Why, the same place that all of its power comes from: the people.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

And yet we do not have a rash of people using grenade launchers in crimes, ......... I wonder why that is.

The answer is obviously that the gun control restrictions were immensely successful, the same as with machine guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

How can anything be banned - where does the government properly get that power ? Why, the same place that all of its power comes from: the people.

so you don't care about the constitution

I figured that out a while back