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

[Slade3200]

Personally I think we'll need all the fire power we can get.....

And, whether guns are banned or not. . . Should the time ever come when we the people decide to take the same actions that our founding fathers did in the revolutionary war. . . I am pretty damn sure that it will be just about ANYTHING goes.


I have said this before but just imagine any of the founder's reaction to the king and the king's tyranny if the king tried to dictate what weapons the founders could have and use to defend THEIR (our) freedoms.

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely valid

But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I'm not making that case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And, whether guns are banned or not. . . Should the time ever come when we the people decide to take the same actions that our founding fathers did in the revolutionary war. . . I am pretty damn sure that it will be just about ANYTHING goes.


I have said this before but just imagine any of the founder's reaction to the king and the king's tyranny if the king tried to dictate what weapons the founders could have and use to defend THEIR (our) freedoms.

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely valid

But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I'm not making that case.

You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts.

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access.

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this

The fact that millions and millions of these guns already exist means that they ARE available, at stores, at gun shows, from private individuals, just like they are now - banning the sale and manufacture of new guns has no bearing on this.
People like Mateen will still have easy access to them.

 

[Slade3200]

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely valid

But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I'm not making that case.

You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.

I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago... I wouldn't have played your game if I knew you were gonna be a pain in the ass about it. On to a real topic please, this one is meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely valid

But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I'm not making that case.

You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.

I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago...

And yet, you used your imagination to do just that.

 

[Slade3200]

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts.

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access.

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this

The fact that millions and millions of these guns already exist means that they ARE available, at stores, at gun shows, from private individuals, just like they are now - banning the sale and manufacture of new guns has no bearing on this.
People like Mateen will still have easy access to them.

He didn't have access to a machine gun, grenades or body armor did he? He also tried to buy more fire power at a gun store but was denied, right? There is a real life example for you of how limited access to high power weapons may have saved lives

 

[Slade3200]

You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely valid

But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I'm not making that case.

You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.

I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago...

And yet, you used your imagination to do just that.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards. I was responding to some bodies post about the founding fathers, You don't have to be a prick about it. This is the dumbest arguement of the day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access.

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this

The fact that millions and millions of these guns already exist means that they ARE available, at stores, at gun shows, from private individuals, just like they are now - banning the sale and manufacture of new guns has no bearing on this.
People like Mateen will still have easy access to them.

He didn't have access to a machine gun, grenades or body armor did he? He also tried to buy more fire power at a gun store but was denied, right? There is a real life example for you of how limited access to high power weapons may have saved lives

I'm not sure that part of the fact that millions of millions of these weapons still in circulation you do not understand, but it means that all he needs to LEGALLY get one is money. During the 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban, any and every gun show and gun dealer had 'assault weapons' to sell. Why? A huge number of existing weapons.
Are there millions upon millions of existing machineguns on the market? Grenades? No? Your point, mooted.
Unless you plan to confiscate existing weapons, access to those existing weapons is unfettered by a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons.

Also.... body armor is cheap, legal, and easy to buy on the internet.

 

[Slade3200]

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access.

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this

The fact that millions and millions of these guns already exist means that they ARE available, at stores, at gun shows, from private individuals, just like they are now - banning the sale and manufacture of new guns has no bearing on this.
People like Mateen will still have easy access to them.

He didn't have access to a machine gun, grenades or body armor did he? He also tried to buy more fire power at a gun store but was denied, right? There is a real life example for you of how limited access to high power weapons may have saved lives

I'm not sure that part of the fact that millions of millions of these weapons still in circulation you do not understand, but it means that all he needs to LEGALLY get one is money. During the 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban, any and every gun show and gun dealer had 'assault weapons' to sell. Why? A huge number of existing weapons.
Are there millions upon millions of existing machineguns on the market? Grenades? No? Your point, mooted.
Unless you plan to confiscate existing weapons, access to those existing weapons is unfettered by a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons.

Also.... body armor is cheap, legal, and easy to buy on the internet.

My point isn't mooted it is made by your arguement. Why isn't there millions of machine guns available on the market?

Do you think that is a good thing that fosters a safer society? Be honest

 

[M14 Shooter]

But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I'm not making that case.

You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.

I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago...

And yet, you used your imagination to do just that.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards. I was responding to some bodies post about the founding fathers, You don't have to be a prick about it. This is the dumbest arguement of the day.

Ahh. OK.
If the Founding Fathers saw the weapons used by the military as today, they'd stand firm behind the idea that the 2nd amendment protected the right of the people to M16s, M240s and any other weapon in common use as the ordinary military equipment of the day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this

The fact that millions and millions of these guns already exist means that they ARE available, at stores, at gun shows, from private individuals, just like they are now - banning the sale and manufacture of new guns has no bearing on this.
People like Mateen will still have easy access to them.

He didn't have access to a machine gun, grenades or body armor did he? He also tried to buy more fire power at a gun store but was denied, right? There is a real life example for you of how limited access to high power weapons may have saved lives

I'm not sure that part of the fact that millions of millions of these weapons still in circulation you do not understand, but it means that all he needs to LEGALLY get one is money. During the 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban, any and every gun show and gun dealer had 'assault weapons' to sell. Why? A huge number of existing weapons.
Are there millions upon millions of existing machineguns on the market? Grenades? No? Your point, mooted.
Unless you plan to confiscate existing weapons, access to those existing weapons is unfettered by a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons.
Also.... body armor is cheap, legal, and easy to buy on the internet.

My point isn't mooted it is made by your arguement.

it is,
You base your argument on the fact that it is not east to get a machine gun or grenades because they are restricted.
This is flawed as the market for neither machineguns nor grenades has millions and millions of examples legally available in the market when they were restricted.

Banning the manufacture and sale of new 'assault weapons' will not restrict anyone form getting an existing weapon in any way.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not making that case.

You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.

I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago...

And yet, you used your imagination to do just that.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards. I was responding to some bodies post about the founding fathers, You don't have to be a prick about it. This is the dumbest arguement of the day.

Ahh. OK.
If the Founding Fathers saw the weapons used by the military as today, they'd stand firm behind the idea that the 2nd amendment protected the right of the people to M16s, M240s and any other weapon in common use as the ordinary military equipment of the day.

There you go using your imagination to assume what the FF would do. I knew it was a matter of time before you'd contradict yourself. So we are both guilty of presenting our imaginations as useless points. move on. This subject is boring.

 

[Slade3200]

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this

The fact that millions and millions of these guns already exist means that they ARE available, at stores, at gun shows, from private individuals, just like they are now - banning the sale and manufacture of new guns has no bearing on this.
People like Mateen will still have easy access to them.

He didn't have access to a machine gun, grenades or body armor did he? He also tried to buy more fire power at a gun store but was denied, right? There is a real life example for you of how limited access to high power weapons may have saved lives

I'm not sure that part of the fact that millions of millions of these weapons still in circulation you do not understand, but it means that all he needs to LEGALLY get one is money. During the 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban, any and every gun show and gun dealer had 'assault weapons' to sell. Why? A huge number of existing weapons.
Are there millions upon millions of existing machineguns on the market? Grenades? No? Your point, mooted.
Unless you plan to confiscate existing weapons, access to those existing weapons is unfettered by a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons.
Also.... body armor is cheap, legal, and easy to buy on the internet.

My point isn't mooted it is made by your arguement.

it is,
You base your argument on the fact that it is not east to get a machine gun or grenades because they are restricted.
This is flawed as the market for neither machineguns nor grenades has millions and millions of examples legally available in the market when they were restricted.

Banning the manufacture and sale of new 'assault weapons' will not restrict anyone form getting an existing weapon in any way.

Ok, but it will put less of these weapons into the market. It will also make buyers need to seek a private sale and or a private illegal sale depending on how the law is set up. This limits access. It doesn't eliminate access but it limits it. There is benefit to limits and reductions when the goal is saving lives.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.

I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago...

And yet, you used your imagination to do just that.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards. I was responding to some bodies post about the founding fathers, You don't have to be a prick about it. This is the dumbest arguement of the day.

Ahh. OK.
If the Founding Fathers saw the weapons used by the military as today, they'd stand firm behind the idea that the 2nd amendment protected the right of the people to M16s, M240s and any other weapon in common use as the ordinary military equipment of the day.

There you go using your imagination to assume what the FF would do.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards.

 

[Slade3200]

I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago...

And yet, you used your imagination to do just that.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards. I was responding to some bodies post about the founding fathers, You don't have to be a prick about it. This is the dumbest arguement of the day.

Ahh. OK.
If the Founding Fathers saw the weapons used by the military as today, they'd stand firm behind the idea that the 2nd amendment protected the right of the people to M16s, M240s and any other weapon in common use as the ordinary military equipment of the day.

There you go using your imagination to assume what the FF would do.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards.

Are you mental? You diss me for expressing my opinion, then do the same thing you insulted me for, then when I call you on it, you use my argument to justify it... Are you trying to discredit yourself?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact that millions and millions of these guns already exist means that they ARE available, at stores, at gun shows, from private individuals, just like they are now - banning the sale and manufacture of new guns has no bearing on this.
People like Mateen will still have easy access to them.

He didn't have access to a machine gun, grenades or body armor did he? He also tried to buy more fire power at a gun store but was denied, right? There is a real life example for you of how limited access to high power weapons may have saved lives

I'm not sure that part of the fact that millions of millions of these weapons still in circulation you do not understand, but it means that all he needs to LEGALLY get one is money. During the 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban, any and every gun show and gun dealer had 'assault weapons' to sell. Why? A huge number of existing weapons.
Are there millions upon millions of existing machineguns on the market? Grenades? No? Your point, mooted.
Unless you plan to confiscate existing weapons, access to those existing weapons is unfettered by a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons.
Also.... body armor is cheap, legal, and easy to buy on the internet.

My point isn't mooted it is made by your arguement.

it is,
You base your argument on the fact that it is not east to get a machine gun or grenades because they are restricted.
This is flawed as the market for neither machineguns nor grenades has millions and millions of examples legally available in the market when they were restricted.

Banning the manufacture and sale of new 'assault weapons' will not restrict anyone form getting an existing weapon in any way.

Ok, but it will put less of these weapons into the market.

Incorrect. The number of guns ion the market will not meaningfully decrease from the millions upon millions already in circulation.

It will also make buyers need to seek a private sale...

Incorrect Dealers can still sell used guns. Used gun will be available at gun shows. Just like 1994-2004.
Just like then, there will be no limit to access.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet, you used your imagination to do just that.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards. I was responding to some bodies post about the founding fathers, You don't have to be a prick about it. This is the dumbest arguement of the day.

Ahh. OK.
If the Founding Fathers saw the weapons used by the military as today, they'd stand firm behind the idea that the 2nd amendment protected the right of the people to M16s, M240s and any other weapon in common use as the ordinary military equipment of the day.

There you go using your imagination to assume what the FF would do.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards.

Are you mental? You diss me for expressing my opinion, then do the same thing you insulted me for, then when I call you on it, you use my argument to justify it... Are you trying to discredit yourself?

You clearly do not understand the point .
My opinion on what the founders woudl do is just as meaningful as yours.
As such, the point you made with your opinion is just as valid as mine.

 

[Slade3200]

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards. I was responding to some bodies post about the founding fathers, You don't have to be a prick about it. This is the dumbest arguement of the day.

Ahh. OK.
If the Founding Fathers saw the weapons used by the military as today, they'd stand firm behind the idea that the 2nd amendment protected the right of the people to M16s, M240s and any other weapon in common use as the ordinary military equipment of the day.

There you go using your imagination to assume what the FF would do.

It's called an opinion, that's what we express here on discussion boards.

Are you mental? You diss me for expressing my opinion, then do the same thing you insulted me for, then when I call you on it, you use my argument to justify it... Are you trying to discredit yourself?

You clearly do not understand the point .
My opinion on what the founders woudl do is just as meaningful as yours.
As such, the point you made with your opinion is just as valid as mine.

wonderful, we both made valid points, thank you for admitting that. You initial comment was that my comment was not valid. Glad we got that figured out... can we move off this topic now?

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

 

[Slade3200]

He didn't have access to a machine gun, grenades or body armor did he? He also tried to buy more fire power at a gun store but was denied, right? There is a real life example for you of how limited access to high power weapons may have saved lives

I'm not sure that part of the fact that millions of millions of these weapons still in circulation you do not understand, but it means that all he needs to LEGALLY get one is money. During the 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban, any and every gun show and gun dealer had 'assault weapons' to sell. Why? A huge number of existing weapons.
Are there millions upon millions of existing machineguns on the market? Grenades? No? Your point, mooted.
Unless you plan to confiscate existing weapons, access to those existing weapons is unfettered by a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons.
Also.... body armor is cheap, legal, and easy to buy on the internet.

My point isn't mooted it is made by your arguement.

it is,
You base your argument on the fact that it is not east to get a machine gun or grenades because they are restricted.
This is flawed as the market for neither machineguns nor grenades has millions and millions of examples legally available in the market when they were restricted.

Banning the manufacture and sale of new 'assault weapons' will not restrict anyone form getting an existing weapon in any way.

Ok, but it will put less of these weapons into the market.

Incorrect. The number of guns ion the market will not meaningfully decrease from the millions upon millions already in circulation.

It will also make buyers need to seek a private sale...

Incorrect Dealers can still sell used guns. Used gun will be available at gun shows. Just like 1994-2004.
Just like then, there will be no limit to access.

If dealers can not sell weapons that are deemed banned then that LIMITS and REDUCES access to the general public. Why don't you understand this? It isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not sure that part of the fact that millions of millions of these weapons still in circulation you do not understand, but it means that all he needs to LEGALLY get one is money. During the 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban, any and every gun show and gun dealer had 'assault weapons' to sell. Why? A huge number of existing weapons.
Are there millions upon millions of existing machineguns on the market? Grenades? No? Your point, mooted.
Unless you plan to confiscate existing weapons, access to those existing weapons is unfettered by a ban on manufacture and sale of new weapons.
Also.... body armor is cheap, legal, and easy to buy on the internet.

My point isn't mooted it is made by your arguement.

it is,
You base your argument on the fact that it is not east to get a machine gun or grenades because they are restricted.
This is flawed as the market for neither machineguns nor grenades has millions and millions of examples legally available in the market when they were restricted.

Banning the manufacture and sale of new 'assault weapons' will not restrict anyone form getting an existing weapon in any way.

Ok, but it will put less of these weapons into the market.

Incorrect. The number of guns ion the market will not meaningfully decrease from the millions upon millions already in circulation.

It will also make buyers need to seek a private sale...

Incorrect Dealers can still sell used guns. Used gun will be available at gun shows. Just like 1994-2004.
Just like then, there will be no limit to access.

If dealers can not sell weapons that are deemed banned....

Why can't they?
Existing weapons are not banned.