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

[80zephyr]

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.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

If it is "pointless" to assume the intentions of the founders, then it makes the entire Constitution basically worthless, because we can interpret it to mean what we want it to.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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?

There will be even more millions of weapons and high capacity mags in the hands of the people too, as the push for more gun control by the libtards and politicians heats up.

Indeed. Weapons and ammo are, right now, flying off the shelves faster than they can be restocked. Unintended consequences. Americans, however, aren't stupid - they see what's coming down the road....

Crazy how thats happening yet you all are insisting that Obama is taking your guns away. You all are a bunch of puppets lining the pockets of the gun lobby and they are laughing all the way to the bank. They got you fighting an invisible enemy like a bunch of mindless drones. Newsflash: Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

If its a paranoid conspiracy theory, why are you here calling for a ban on assault weapons?

Mark

 

[Slade3200]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

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... Don't you think if it could save lives then it would be worth it?

I ask again. If a reduction in body count is the goal, what is the acceptable number of deaths per mass shooting?

Mark

As little as possible... You know there is no number or answer to that question. We do what we can to protect our public from external threats while providing the public the ability to protect themselves.

If its "as little as possible", then your banning will not stop at assault weapons. Do you agree?

Mark

There is a balance as there also needs to be the ability to defend ones self. The debate should be about reasonable parameters to do this. Somewhere between a musket and a machine gun. Instead of having a reasonable debate about this we get these extremist that deny the practicality of any type of gun control and it makes the discussion degressive.

I am a gun owner that doesn't think there needs to be a ton more restrictions or bans, but I'm open to exploring ways to make our security checks and available weapons safer to the public and enjoy engaging in those kinds of conversations. I get pushed to the far left when I argue with these wingnuts that insist that Obama is taking their guns away and stomping on the 2nd amendment. It so far from reality that I can't help but call them on their BS

 

[80zephyr]

Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

You seek a ban on the manufacture and sale of 'assault weapons'.
That is, you seek to block my right to buy a gun.
So much for the paranoid conspiracy.

Not to buy a gun... There are plenty of guns you can go buy. Just like you can't go to the store and buy a bomb, mustard gas, a nuclear warhead, or machine gun, there are limitations to the destructive power an average citizen can legally obtain. Your spin is tired and weak.

OK, now answer this question honestly. If assault rifles were banned and someone managed to kill 20 people with a different weapon, would you call or a ban of that weapon as well?

This is why I constantly ask what number of deaths is acceptable. If 5 is too many, then every gun that exists would have to be banned.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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... Don't you think if it could save lives then it would be worth it?

I ask again. If a reduction in body count is the goal, what is the acceptable number of deaths per mass shooting?

Mark

As little as possible... You know there is no number or answer to that question. We do what we can to protect our public from external threats while providing the public the ability to protect themselves.

If its "as little as possible", then your banning will not stop at assault weapons. Do you agree?

Mark

There is a balance as there also needs to be the ability to defend ones self. The debate should be about reasonable parameters to do this. Somewhere between a musket and a machine gun. Instead of having a reasonable debate about this we get these extremist that deny the practicality of any type of gun control and it makes the discussion degressive.

I am a gun owner that doesn't think there needs to be a ton more restrictions or bans, but I'm open to exploring ways to make our security checks and available weapons safer to the public and enjoy engaging in those kinds of conversations. I get pushed to the far left when I argue with these wingnuts that insist that Obama is taking their guns away and stomping on the 2nd amendment. It so far from reality that I can't help but call them on their BS

There are many on the left that would take every gun in a heartbeat, if they could get away with it.

Mark

 

[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?

There will be even more millions of weapons and high capacity mags in the hands of the people too, as the push for more gun control by the libtards and politicians heats up.

Indeed. Weapons and ammo are, right now, flying off the shelves faster than they can be restocked. Unintended consequences. Americans, however, aren't stupid - they see what's coming down the road....

Crazy how thats happening yet you all are insisting that Obama is taking your guns away. You all are a bunch of puppets lining the pockets of the gun lobby and they are laughing all the way to the bank. They got you fighting an invisible enemy like a bunch of mindless drones. Newsflash: Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

If its a paranoid conspiracy theory, why are you here calling for a ban on assault weapons?

Mark

You have a point when it comes to the weapons that are in threat of being banned. My comments were to the 2nd amendment and the right to bare arms.

 

[80zephyr]

Those who seek to place further restriction on the rights of the law abiding seek the reinstatement of the 1994 AW ban on the manufacture and sale of new weapons; no one has brought up banning the sale of existing weapons.

I guess we have to start somewhere. Stop feeding the supply of assault style (or whatever you want to call them) weapons is a logical first step. But you make a good point that to be more effective the sale and distribution of these weapons should be regulated as well.

So you want our country to be more like the Middle East?

Are you insane? Asked and answered.....

Like I said in the above post - limp-wristed liberals have cheered the murder of one million babies since 1973. What the hell makes you think that liberals are any different than ISIS?

FYI, it's actually more than FIFTY million children now that have been murdered by abortions.

Start another thread if you want to talk about abortion... I"ll expose your hypocrisy pretty quickly.

As tempted as I am to give you the thrashing you deserve on the topic of abortion as you have been getting on the topic of gun control. . . I think I'll pass.

You obviously are impervious to any line of reasoning or logic that challenges your prejudiced views and bias in favor of your libtarded talking points.

Ditto, we are both strong in our beliefs... however, I am very open minded to reasonable arguments. I just haven't heard any presented by either of you. How many liberal views have you been open to? or are you just being a hypocrite in your insults?

Which side is close minded? You do realize that gun grabbers have already passed hundreds of laws, with little effect. Also, remember that this country(we conservatives) have let the left have their way for decades. As a matter of fact, except for gun control, I would dare you to cite an area where the left hasn't had what they wanted enacted.

Mark

 

[Slade3200]

Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

You seek a ban on the manufacture and sale of 'assault weapons'.
That is, you seek to block my right to buy a gun.
So much for the paranoid conspiracy.

Not to buy a gun... There are plenty of guns you can go buy. Just like you can't go to the store and buy a bomb, mustard gas, a nuclear warhead, or machine gun, there are limitations to the destructive power an average citizen can legally obtain. Your spin is tired and weak.

OK, now answer this question honestly. If assault rifles were banned and someone managed to kill 20 people with a different weapon, would you call or a ban of that weapon as well?

This is why I constantly ask what number of deaths is acceptable. If 5 is too many, then every gun that exists would have to be banned.

Mark

There will always be anti gunners who want to ban all guns, they will use any tragedy to progress their cause, but that is a fringe extreme group and they are not capable of passing legislation to achieve this. Just as there are fringe gunners that think there should be no bans on anything and they should be driving tanks to work. Lets ignore both these groups for this argument so we can stick to reality. We can't put a number an acceptable deaths as thats just not a realistic question. We can look at what weapons are available for the public to buy and do our best to make sure we are fostering reasonable safety standards. Anything that can inflict a massive amount of casualties in a short amount of time is a huge liability. Wouldn't you agree that this should be analyzed and managed to some extent?

 

[80zephyr]

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?

There will be even more millions of weapons and high capacity mags in the hands of the people too, as the push for more gun control by the libtards and politicians heats up.

Indeed. Weapons and ammo are, right now, flying off the shelves faster than they can be restocked. Unintended consequences. Americans, however, aren't stupid - they see what's coming down the road....

Crazy how thats happening yet you all are insisting that Obama is taking your guns away. You all are a bunch of puppets lining the pockets of the gun lobby and they are laughing all the way to the bank. They got you fighting an invisible enemy like a bunch of mindless drones. Newsflash: Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

If its a paranoid conspiracy theory, why are you here calling for a ban on assault weapons?

Mark

You have a point when it comes to the weapons that are in threat of being banned. My comments were to the 2nd amendment and the right to bare arms.

If by "bear arms" you mean like those allowed in some countries, you might as well admit to a de facto ban. In Great Britain, the only firearms that can be owned legally are shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

You seek a ban on the manufacture and sale of 'assault weapons'.
That is, you seek to block my right to buy a gun.
So much for the paranoid conspiracy.

Not to buy a gun... There are plenty of guns you can go buy. Just like you can't go to the store and buy a bomb, mustard gas, a nuclear warhead, or machine gun, there are limitations to the destructive power an average citizen can legally obtain. Your spin is tired and weak.

OK, now answer this question honestly. If assault rifles were banned and someone managed to kill 20 people with a different weapon, would you call or a ban of that weapon as well?

This is why I constantly ask what number of deaths is acceptable. If 5 is too many, then every gun that exists would have to be banned.

Mark

There will always be anti gunners who want to ban all guns, they will use any tragedy to progress their cause, but that is a fringe extreme group and they are not capable of passing legislation to achieve this. Just as there are fringe gunners that think there should be no bans on anything and they should be driving tanks to work. Lets ignore both these groups for this argument so we can stick to reality. We can't put a number an acceptable deaths as thats just not a realistic question. We can look at what weapons are available for the public to buy and do our best to make sure we are fostering reasonable safety standards. Anything that can inflict a massive amount of casualties in a short amount of time is a huge liability. Wouldn't you agree that this should be analyzed and managed to some extent?

If we can't put a number on deaths, then how do we ascertain the extent we want to go to? If a nut with a revolver would shoot and manage to reload at least once, he could kill 12 people. Most would say thats too many.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with just pistols, do you favor banning them as well?

Mark

 

[Slade3200]

I guess we have to start somewhere. Stop feeding the supply of assault style (or whatever you want to call them) weapons is a logical first step. But you make a good point that to be more effective the sale and distribution of these weapons should be regulated as well.

Are you insane? Asked and answered.....

Like I said in the above post - limp-wristed liberals have cheered the murder of one million babies since 1973. What the hell makes you think that liberals are any different than ISIS?

FYI, it's actually more than FIFTY million children now that have been murdered by abortions.

Start another thread if you want to talk about abortion... I"ll expose your hypocrisy pretty quickly.

As tempted as I am to give you the thrashing you deserve on the topic of abortion as you have been getting on the topic of gun control. . . I think I'll pass.

You obviously are impervious to any line of reasoning or logic that challenges your prejudiced views and bias in favor of your libtarded talking points.

Ditto, we are both strong in our beliefs... however, I am very open minded to reasonable arguments. I just haven't heard any presented by either of you. How many liberal views have you been open to? or are you just being a hypocrite in your insults?

Which side is close minded? You do realize that gun grabbers have already passed hundreds of laws, with little effect. Also, remember that this country(we conservatives) have let the left have their way for decades. As a matter of fact, except for gun control, I would dare you to cite an area where the left hasn't had what they wanted enacted.

Mark

Both sides have very close minded individuals. Both sides also have open minded moderates that truly care about the better good and not simply progressing their agenda at all costs. I think the contrast between conservatives and liberals is a very healthy and necessary thing in our government. If either side had it completely their way it would not be good for our country.

 

[mudwhistle]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

Anything that can be fired as fast or faster than this is an assault-weapon to the left.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

You seek a ban on the manufacture and sale of 'assault weapons'.
That is, you seek to block my right to buy a gun.
So much for the paranoid conspiracy.

Not to buy a gun... There are plenty of guns you can go buy. Just like you can't go to the store and buy a bomb, mustard gas, a nuclear warhead, or machine gun, there are limitations to the destructive power an average citizen can legally obtain. Your spin is tired and weak.

OK, now answer this question honestly. If assault rifles were banned and someone managed to kill 20 people with a different weapon, would you call or a ban of that weapon as well?

This is why I constantly ask what number of deaths is acceptable. If 5 is too many, then every gun that exists would have to be banned.

Mark

There will always be anti gunners who want to ban all guns, they will use any tragedy to progress their cause, but that is a fringe extreme group and they are not capable of passing legislation to achieve this. Just as there are fringe gunners that think there should be no bans on anything and they should be driving tanks to work. Lets ignore both these groups for this argument so we can stick to reality. We can't put a number an acceptable deaths as thats just not a realistic question. We can look at what weapons are available for the public to buy and do our best to make sure we are fostering reasonable safety standards. Anything that can inflict a massive amount of casualties in a short amount of time is a huge liability. Wouldn't you agree that this should be analyzed and managed to some extent?

If we can't put a number on deaths, then how do we ascertain the extent we want to go to? If a nut with a revolver would shoot and manage to reload at least once, he could kill 12 people. Most would say thats too many.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with just pistols, do you favor banning them as well?

Mark

They want to ban anything that we can use to fend off the ATF, FBI, or IRS with.

 

[80zephyr]

FYI, it's actually more than FIFTY million children now that have been murdered by abortions.

Start another thread if you want to talk about abortion... I"ll expose your hypocrisy pretty quickly.

As tempted as I am to give you the thrashing you deserve on the topic of abortion as you have been getting on the topic of gun control. . . I think I'll pass.

You obviously are impervious to any line of reasoning or logic that challenges your prejudiced views and bias in favor of your libtarded talking points.

Ditto, we are both strong in our beliefs... however, I am very open minded to reasonable arguments. I just haven't heard any presented by either of you. How many liberal views have you been open to? or are you just being a hypocrite in your insults?

Which side is close minded? You do realize that gun grabbers have already passed hundreds of laws, with little effect. Also, remember that this country(we conservatives) have let the left have their way for decades. As a matter of fact, except for gun control, I would dare you to cite an area where the left hasn't had what they wanted enacted.

Mark

Both sides have very close minded individuals. Both sides also have open minded moderates that truly care about the better good and not simply progressing their agenda at all costs. I think the contrast between conservatives and liberals is a very healthy and necessary thing in our government. If either side had it completely their way it would not be good for our country.

I agree. So, when are the liberals gonna give a little? When is enough, enough? Is it after gay marriage, guys in girls bathrooms, or after pedophilia?

Where has the left given up and let the right have their way?

They haven't. And that is why a guy like Trump scares them to death. They are not used to being told "no".

Mark

 

[Pete7469]

If Americans gun grabbers did propaganda for Israel, the Palestinians would use "assault rocks".

Funny which side the bed wetters take on that conflict though.

 

[Pete7469]

Roz Your last sentence is the center piece motivating their agenda. They view a select chosen few as the only qualified individuals possessing firearms. Face it they are genetically engineered to march into the showers without a fight.

Like I say, in order to be a libturd you have to be the drone who will go to the gas without a fight, be the soulless **** who turns on the gas, or the criminally insane totalitarian sociopath a libturd elects.

 

[Slade3200]

Nobody is taking your guns away or blocking your right to buy a gun! You can't prove they are either without using some paranoid conspiracy theory about some hidden agenda of the left to disarm.

You seek a ban on the manufacture and sale of 'assault weapons'.
That is, you seek to block my right to buy a gun.
So much for the paranoid conspiracy.

Not to buy a gun... There are plenty of guns you can go buy. Just like you can't go to the store and buy a bomb, mustard gas, a nuclear warhead, or machine gun, there are limitations to the destructive power an average citizen can legally obtain. Your spin is tired and weak.

OK, now answer this question honestly. If assault rifles were banned and someone managed to kill 20 people with a different weapon, would you call or a ban of that weapon as well?

This is why I constantly ask what number of deaths is acceptable. If 5 is too many, then every gun that exists would have to be banned.

Mark

There will always be anti gunners who want to ban all guns, they will use any tragedy to progress their cause, but that is a fringe extreme group and they are not capable of passing legislation to achieve this. Just as there are fringe gunners that think there should be no bans on anything and they should be driving tanks to work. Lets ignore both these groups for this argument so we can stick to reality. We can't put a number an acceptable deaths as thats just not a realistic question. We can look at what weapons are available for the public to buy and do our best to make sure we are fostering reasonable safety standards. Anything that can inflict a massive amount of casualties in a short amount of time is a huge liability. Wouldn't you agree that this should be analyzed and managed to some extent?

If we can't put a number on deaths, then how do we ascertain the extent we want to go to? If a nut with a revolver would shoot and manage to reload at least once, he could kill 12 people. Most would say thats too many.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with just pistols, do you favor banning them as well?

Mark

No I don't. And don't think understand that somebody with a ton of ammo and time can reload and fire all day killing hundreds if not stopped. But being able to spray a room and kill hundreds in less than a minute is pretty rediculous, wouldn't you agree? So under that pretense wouldn't you support some level of regulation towards what we legally sell?

Give people a chance to run or react after they hear the first pop. Is that really too much to ask for?

 

[Slade3200]

Start another thread if you want to talk about abortion... I"ll expose your hypocrisy pretty quickly.

As tempted as I am to give you the thrashing you deserve on the topic of abortion as you have been getting on the topic of gun control. . . I think I'll pass.

You obviously are impervious to any line of reasoning or logic that challenges your prejudiced views and bias in favor of your libtarded talking points.

Ditto, we are both strong in our beliefs... however, I am very open minded to reasonable arguments. I just haven't heard any presented by either of you. How many liberal views have you been open to? or are you just being a hypocrite in your insults?

Which side is close minded? You do realize that gun grabbers have already passed hundreds of laws, with little effect. Also, remember that this country(we conservatives) have let the left have their way for decades. As a matter of fact, except for gun control, I would dare you to cite an area where the left hasn't had what they wanted enacted.

Mark

Both sides have very close minded individuals. Both sides also have open minded moderates that truly care about the better good and not simply progressing their agenda at all costs. I think the contrast between conservatives and liberals is a very healthy and necessary thing in our government. If either side had it completely their way it would not be good for our country.

I agree. So, when are the liberals gonna give a little? When is enough, enough? Is it after gay marriage, guys in girls bathrooms, or after pedophilia?

Where has the left given up and let the right have their way?

They haven't. And that is why a guy like Trump scares them to death. They are not used to being told "no".

Mark

Are you talking about social issues, fiscal or both? There are plenty of examples of give and take if you look at everything. Trump scares people on both sides because he is a wild card. Not because he is a conservative. He is pretty liberal on most social issues of you really look at it

 

[RandallFlagg]

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts... Don't you think if it could save lives then it would be worth it?

I ask again. If a reduction in body count is the goal, what is the acceptable number of deaths per mass shooting?

Mark

As little as possible... You know there is no number or answer to that question. We do what we can to protect our public from external threats while providing the public the ability to protect themselves.

If its "as little as possible", then your banning will not stop at assault weapons. Do you agree?

Mark

There is a balance as there also needs to be the ability to defend ones self. The debate should be about reasonable parameters to do this. Somewhere between a musket and a machine gun. Instead of having a reasonable debate about this we get these extremist that deny the practicality of any type of gun control and it makes the discussion degressive.

I am a gun owner that doesn't think there needs to be a ton more restrictions or bans, but I'm open to exploring ways to make our security checks and available weapons safer to the public and enjoy engaging in those kinds of conversations. I get pushed to the far left when I argue with these wingnuts that insist that Obama is taking their guns away and stomping on the 2nd amendment. It so far from reality that I can't help but call them on their BS

There are many on the left that would take every gun in a heartbeat, if they could get away with it.

Mark

They would take every gun from every law abiding citizen in the country. The murderers that run the streets of Chicago would be allowed to keep theirs, however. Don't want to upset the blacks in the Urban war areas....they might not vote democrat..