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

[Absentglare]

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

So you're just fooling around, 'cause that sure sounds exactly like what you've been saying.

Fooling around ?? No, not at all. Maybe some of you are fooling around, projecting strawmen arguments onto me only to knock them down, but i am not.

 

[humbolt]

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

Fooling around ?? No, not at all. Maybe some of you are fooling around, projecting strawmen arguments onto me only to knock them down, but i am not.

Maybe you should try fooling around, then.

 

[TheGoverness]

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

Maybe you should try fooling around, then.

Like me.

 

[humbolt]

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

Like me.

There's a big difference between fooling around and being one. He claims he's serious.

 

[blaxshep]

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

I care about the people, not some sensationalized, nationalist nonsense argument that is myopically focused on firearms at the expense of everything else.

If that is the case then why do you want to ban a gun that kills only a handful of people yet make no effort to ban the types of guns that kill thousands of people?

Sounds to me like some sensationalized, nationalist nonsense argument that is myopically focused on a single type of firearm at the expense of everything else.

 

[BretJ]

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.

Fair enough statement. Don't you believe however that while the proposal may seem constitutional on its surface, that given what you know about firearms, it would dang near be impossible to craft a bill that would actually accomplish anything without banning all magazine fed, semiautomatic firearms? The AR has no relevant capabilities over and above any other mag fed firearm.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

It is irrelevant.

translation-you cannot

 

[Crimefree]

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

You can't make a federal drinking age of 21 for the same reason, but they found a way, didn't they ?

What is stopping this from being done? You obviously know so please post it.

I don't have to prove anything, in fact, we hardly ever do. What we do do is audit those mechanisms that we do put in place.

Absolutely fantastic idea. What does your audit on gun control show? How many crimes have been prevented? How many lives saved? How much crime has been reduced, how many felons has it rehabilitated?

I am a great believer in such methods in particular for medications and any law or measure that has the potential to endanger people.

Let me ask how many laws are there that can be shown to work repeatedly? I mean no medication could ever be passed if it sort of worked maybe only once, but nobody actually knows why or how. If it cannot be repeated then obviously that is a failure.

What percentage convinced you that gun control was a viable medicine for citizens and it would not endanger any lives?

 

[Absentglare]

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

Fair enough statement. Don't you believe however that while the proposal may seem constitutional on its surface, that given what you know about firearms, it would dang near be impossible to craft a bill that would actually accomplish anything without banning all magazine fed, semiautomatic firearms? The AR has no relevant capabilities over and above any other mag fed firearm.

Sorry BretJ, i forgot to respond to this.

I agree with you, it may be difficult to craft a bill that would specifically ban the AR15 while also remaining constitutional.

I'm not specifically concerned with the AR15, but from my view, it is not unreasonable to consider expanding the available firearms under the caveat that the more destructive and less usual firearms require some sort of basic gun training certification to acquire. I don't think we have to pass something like this, but i do believe it's a reasonable suggestion, and it deserves a reasonable rebuttal: declarations of unconstitutionality and confiscation won't cut it for me.

 

[jet57]

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

Sorry BretJ, i forgot to respond to this.

I agree with you, it may be difficult to craft a bill that would specifically ban the AR15 while also remaining constitutional.

I'm not specifically concerned with the AR15, but from my view, it is not unreasonable to consider expanding the available firearms under the caveat that the more destructive and less usual firearms require some sort of basic gun training certification to acquire. I don't think we have to pass something like this, but i do believe it's a reasonable suggestion, and it deserves a reasonable rebuttal: declarations of unconstitutionality and confiscation won't cut it for me.

How is it, do you think, that a bill banning the sale of ARs would not be constitutional?

 

[Absentglare]

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

How is it, do you think, that a bill banning the sale of ARs would not be constitutional?

How would it specify that the AR15, specifically, was banned ?? It would have to define what is banned. If it was just the name, they could just change the name.

Any ban would have to be sufficiently broad so as to include potential re-derivatives, and if it is too broad, it becomes unconstitutional.

 

[Crimefree]

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

If you feel the need to transform my words into your strawman argument in order to "rebut" it, my point is already made.

There is no argument that you animate guns and blame them for the actions of the perpetrators of crime. There is only one objective you can have for doing so and that is to deprive others of objects you fear. You cannot seriously expect anyone of sound mind to believe that your intentions are justified, rational or going to achieve anything other than deprive innocent people of their best means of safety.

Your argument is that the lives of those who die at the hands of an AR15 are negligible ...? 221

Sure, and, in your opinion, 322 Americans aren't worth any laws that secure any more accountability, right ? 239

I am asking you about your position. I think it's not unreasonable for gun enthusiasts to acquire additional training and/or...

There's no compromise of rights. The right can still be exercised. Our founding fathers didn't have a right to an AR15, it didn't get them killed.

You cannot buy a new machine gun. You must think that that violates the constitution if you apply that logic. Is that true ?

Which would make sense if undergoing a background check or a certification course was equivalent to punishment for a crime.

If you pass a background check and the training is qualifying, then why not ?

If the idea is that the second amendment secures the right of the people to overthrow the...

Your theory that criminals and others that are willing to kill are going to follow the law and get tested in order to obtain a firearm has to be one of the most outrageous lies ever concocted by the merchants of death and animators of metal. What happened to rational thought that one can conclude burning the haystack to find the needle without even knowing the needle is in the haystack is the best way?

Explain how you intend to reduce crime by controlling guns. How does your plan work? If it contains the idiocy of criminals will not be able to get guns do not waste our time or criminals will be deprived if we have tests and.... or training will make people more responsible.... best provide peer reviewed proof from a credible source.

 

[Crimefree]

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

How is it, do you think, that a bill banning the sale of ARs would not be constitutional?

How would it be constitutional? The AR15 falls into the definition of arms which are specifically protected by the constitution.

 

[BretJ]

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

Sorry BretJ, i forgot to respond to this.

I agree with you, it may be difficult to craft a bill that would specifically ban the AR15 while also remaining constitutional.

I'm not specifically concerned with the AR15, but from my view, it is not unreasonable to consider expanding the available firearms under the caveat that the more destructive and less usual firearms require some sort of basic gun training certification to acquire. I don't think we have to pass something like this, but i do believe it's a reasonable suggestion, and it deserves a reasonable rebuttal: declarations of unconstitutionality and confiscation won't cut it for me.

Therein is the problem. The AR 15 is hardly more destructive than many other firearms nor is it less usual. Even before the furor over supposed "assault weapons", it was one of the most popular firearms in the U.S. A "reasonable" suggestion assumes that the suggestion would actually meet a goal other than re-election.

 

[Absentglare]

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

Therein is the problem. The AR 15 is hardly more destructive than many other firearms nor is it less usual. Even before the furor over supposed "assault weapons", it was one of the most popular firearms in the U.S. A "reasonable" suggestion assumes that the suggestion would actually meet a goal other than re-election.

The reality is that a number of people are exercising the right to bear arms in ways that harm Americans.

The goal would be to ensure that gun owners demonstrate some however limited personal responsibility before they can purchase less usual and more dangerous firearms. It could help justify an expansion on the firearms that could be legally purchased. For any gun owner who is eager to comply with the law, that should be a good thing.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

The reality is that a number of people are exercising the right to bear arms in ways that harm Americans.

The goal would be to ensure that gun owners demonstrate some however limited personal responsibility before they can purchase less usual and more dangerous firearms. It could help justify an expansion on the firearms that could be legally purchased. For any gun owner who is eager to comply with the law, that should be a good thing.

what-in your expansive knowledge of firearms-makes a certain firearm More dangerous?

 

[Absentglare]

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

what-in your expansive knowledge of firearms-makes a certain firearm More dangerous?

I don't understand- are you under the impression that all firearms are equally dangerous ?

 

[TurtleDude]

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

I don't understand- are you under the impression that all firearms are equally dangerous ?

what I am trying to educate you on is that "dangerous" is stupid. The only firearms that are dangerous are ones that fail when they are supposed to work. and different environments change which are "more lethal". For example if you are in a fight with multiple people at short ranges, a semi auto shotgun loaded with #4 buck shot is probably the most lethal firearm you can use. However, at 200 yards, that weapon is rather impotent against anyone behind cover. In very close quarters, that shotgun is also going to be less than optimal. now at 1000 meters, a fully automatic assault rifle is pretty worthless too: a bolt action 300 winchester Magnum with a 24 power scope and someone who knows how to read wind is going to be far more lethal than someone with the assault weapons that scare liberals

 

[Crimefree]

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

what I am trying to educate you on is that "dangerous" is stupid. The only firearms that are dangerous are ones that fail when they are supposed to work. and different environments change which are "more lethal". For example if you are in a fight with multiple people at short ranges, a semi auto shotgun loaded with #4 buck shot is probably the most lethal firearm you can use. However, at 200 yards, that weapon is rather impotent against anyone behind cover. In very close quarters, that shotgun is also going to be less than optimal. now at 1000 meters, a fully automatic assault rifle is pretty worthless too: a bolt action 300 winchester Magnum with a 24 power scope and someone who knows how to read wind is going to be far more lethal than someone with the assault weapons that scare liberals

Ah!! When you animate and blame metal then it is the metal that is dangerous. The people holding the metal are all equal and only the power of the dangerous metal counts. If we stop the equal people from getting dangerous metal the problem is solved. It really is very simple.....

 

[Crimefree]

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

I don't understand- are you under the impression that all firearms are equally dangerous ?

How would you test for the dangerous factor?

 

[Crimefree]

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

The reality is that a number of people are exercising the right to bear arms in ways that harm Americans.

Do explain that claim in what way their right is being exercised and how many is a "number of"

The goal would be to ensure that gun owners demonstrate some however limited personal responsibility before they can purchase less usual and more dangerous firearms. It could help justify an expansion on the firearms that could be legally purchased. For any gun owner who is eager to comply with the law, that should be a good thing.

Are you trying to say that the majority of citizens who own firearms are irresponsible and will be rehabilitated by training and/or test?

How many criminal intent owners do you think are going to apply for a firearm? Give a rough guess.

What chance do you think the possible success of your plan has?

 

[BretJ]

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

The reality is that a number of people are exercising the right to bear arms in ways that harm Americans.

The goal would be to ensure that gun owners demonstrate some however limited personal responsibility before they can purchase less usual and more dangerous firearms. It could help justify an expansion on the firearms that could be legally purchased. For any gun owner who is eager to comply with the law, that should be a good thing.

The amount of harm done by abuse of alcohol for instance is exponentially greater than firearms. What is the litmus test for determining which rights or freedoms need to be modified or abridged in order to reduce the harm caused by criminal abuse of a product? Why would the lives of those harmed by alcohol be worth less than the relative handful of lives harmed by firearms. Should the 21st amendment suffer the same scrutiny as the 2nd? Btw, I am a gun owner and have no problem complying with any just law.

 

[VanceMack]

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



Wanna tell me again how you dont foresee a time when an AR15 might not come in handy?

 

[Absentglare]

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

The amount of harm done by abuse of alcohol for instance is exponentially greater than firearms.

I'm not arguing that the harms associated with our firearm laws are the most pressing issue that we face as a society.

What is the litmus test for determining which rights or freedoms need to be modified or abridged in order to reduce the harm caused by criminal abuse of a product?

What's the litmus test for the installation of a speed bump, stop sign, or speed limit ?

Laws are imposed all the time without the use of litmus tests. Freedom has value whether its explicitly enumerated in the constitution or not.

Why would the lives of those harmed by alcohol be worth less than the relative handful of lives harmed by firearms. Should the 21st amendment suffer the same scrutiny as the 2nd? Btw, I am a gun owner and have no problem complying with any just law.

I didn't suggest that the lives of those harmed by alcohol are worth any less. We sacrifice a lot of convenience to enforce alcohol related laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

I'm not arguing that the harms associated with our firearm laws are the most pressing issue that we face as a society.



What's the litmus test for the installation of a speed bump, stop sign, or speed limit ?

Laws are imposed all the time without the use of litmus tests. Freedom has value whether its explicitly enumerated in the constitution or not.



I didn't suggest that the lives of those harmed by alcohol are worth any less. We sacrifice a lot of convenience to enforce alcohol related laws.

traffic controls don't implicate a fundamental constitutional right