Beto O"Rourke calls for ban on AR-15s

[Superfreak]

This is how New Jersey defined them............



then they added.....



I'd say that pretty well covers all of them.

LMAO... all they did was list 'scary guns'. They just use the word 'assault' to scare the ignorant.

 

[Superfreak]

"On the other hand, bullets from an AR-15 and weapons similar to it travel almost three times faster than those of a routine handgun. The shooter can cause more damage while being less accurate, and the wounds are often far more lethal."

https://globalnews.ca/news/4043345/ar-15-handgun-bullet-wounds-difference/

Ok, so you are talking about the velocity of the bullet. They do not shoot faster. The bullet moves faster. There is a difference. Use correct terminology and you will avoid the confusion in the future.

Yes, a rifle will have higher velocity than a handgun (assuming same ammo used in both). Handguns with longer barrels will also tend to have higher velocity than shorter barreled handguns, again assuming all other factors are the same.

 

[Truth Detector]

Notice it says "alleged." It's not saying this is true for sure, just that he's been accused of those things.
Anyway, you're trying to change the subject. The point is that muh Constitution does not protect our rights because, historically, presidents have ignored it.

That is a bullshit claim and your links do not support your bullshit claim. In times of National emergencies, Presidents do have the authority to limit rights in the interest of protecting the American people. That will never change.

No, you're getting angry and strawmanning because you know you're wrong.

I'm not angry at all; I am merely amazed at your glaring ignorance and some of the incredibly stupid comments you are making. But then, this is typical when debating liberals and I should be used to it by now.

I'm saying that laws only prevent people from breaking them if those laws are enforced.

That is a moronic statement. How does one enforce the laws against murder before a murder occurs? Moron. Are you claiming that murders are still occurring because we let people get away with them? Moron.

Of course some people will still break the laws, but many more won't if they know there will be a punishment.

So people don't know they will be punished for murder if they do it? People don't know they will get a fine or ticket for speeding, therefore they continue breaking the law? STFU!!!

 

[Truth Detector]

"On the other hand, bullets from an AR-15 and weapons similar to it travel almost three times faster than those of a routine handgun. The shooter can cause more damage while being less accurate, and the wounds are often far more lethal."

https://globalnews.ca/news/4043345/ar-15-handgun-bullet-wounds-difference/

Now you are moving the goalpost from rate of fire to impact pounds per square foot. You can't have it BOTH ways snowflake. More murders are committed with handguns than those of scary military looking semi-automatics.

Dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

So anytime society decides it disagrees with muh Constitution, we can just change it. That means it's essentially worthless. Not only that, but we don't even need to wait until after we change it, as evidenced by the list of all the times presidents have violated it.

Absurdity; a sure sign of the last desperate refuge for liars, fools and ignorance; and those who have lost their arguments. Yay you!

 

[Truth Detector]

I will be more precise... legally you can own a machine gun, it just has to be pre 1986. The manufacture or import of them is banned. You can own one. But the lack of supply means they are very expensive.

Wrong; they are illegal and in order to own one, one must obtain a very difficult to obtain and expensive permit to own one.

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
Consistent with prior precedent, the court found machine guns to be “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-amendment-ruling_us_57769b2ee4b09b4c43c03f30

 

[Superfreak]

Wrong; they are illegal and in order to own one, one must obtain a very difficult to obtain and expensive permit to own one.

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
Consistent with prior precedent, the court found machine guns to be “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-amendment-ruling_us_57769b2ee4b09b4c43c03f30

again... you can own one legally. As stated, they are expensive to get.

 

[StoneByStone]

Ok, so you are talking about the velocity of the bullet. They do not shoot faster. The bullet moves faster. There is a difference. Use correct terminology and you will avoid the confusion in the future.

Yes, a rifle will have higher velocity than a handgun (assuming same ammo used in both). Handguns with longer barrels will also tend to have higher velocity than shorter barreled handguns, again assuming all other factors are the same.

Talk about splitting hairs.

 

[CFM]

You kinda nailed the crux somewhat.

Back in the day, the clandestine drug manufacturers were one step ahead of the DEA. As soon as one drug was outlawed, the cookers would make a slightly different analog and, bingo, it was legal. Then, the Feds wised up and started to include all analogs, precursors, etc. No reason the same tactic with guns.

If you and pussy Taichi don't think people should own an AR 15, get off your asses and start trying to take them away from those that own them. As it stands, you're nothing but talk and a lot of hot air.

 

[Flash]

So anytime society decides it disagrees with muh Constitution, we can just change it. That means it's essentially worthless. Not only that, but we don't even need to wait until after we change it, as evidenced by the list of all the times presidents have violated it.

No, not when society decides it disagrees. It is difficult to amend the Constitution and requires participation at both the federal and state levels requiring 2/3 and 3/4 majorities. And if we disagree with StoneByStone having free speech that does not mean we can take it away from him.

It can also change through court interpretation. That does not necessarily have anything to do with society disagreeing with it but deciding questions based on new developments. For example, search and seizure does not answer the question of whether electronic surveillance is included since it refers to entering a person's property and seizing physical evidence. It does not cover whether movies, TV, or the internet are included under free press.

If issues arise the Constitution does not answer, the courts must decide that issue based on the intent of the provision.

 

[StoneByStone]

No, not when society decides it disagrees. It is difficult to amend the Constitution and requires participation at both the federal and state levels requiring 2/3 and 3/4 majorities. And if we disagree with StoneByStone having free speech that does not mean we can take it away from him.

If society as a whole decides they don't want free speech anymore, politicians would be clamoring to remove it from muh Constitution to earn support. Requiring majorities wouldn't stop the amendments from happening.

But examining how it can be changed or interpreted is kind of pointless. As I said before, it can always just be ignored.

 

[Flash]

If society as a whole decides they don't want free speech anymore, politicians would be clamoring to remove it from muh Constitution to earn support. Requiring majorities wouldn't stop the amendments from happening.

But examining how it can be changed or interpreted is kind of pointless. As I said before, it can always just be ignored.

And, as I pointed out with several examples, being ignored is often countered by checks and balances. Your examples (from the article) are very few when you eliminate those that are not factual examples of presidents ignoring the Constitution.

 

[StoneByStone]

And, as I pointed out with several examples, being ignored is often countered by checks and balances. Your examples (from the article) are very few when you eliminate those that are not factual examples of presidents ignoring the Constitution.

Which ones weren't factual examples?
And I explained before that the checks and balances countering presidents has nothing to do with muh Constitution, and everything to do with the president being opposed by other people with political power.

 

[Flash]

Which ones weren't factual examples?
And I explained before that the checks and balances countering presidents has nothing to do with muh Constitution, and everything to do with the president being opposed by other people with political power.

There is no such thing as "undermining freedom of the press" by simple criticism, Roosevelt did not order the farmer in the wheat case--that was a federal law, Japanese internship was overturned.

Countering the president through checks and balances if very much a constitutional thing--overturning a veto, resolution blocking president's emergency powers, refusing to confirm presidential appointments, refusing to ratify treaties, court overturning presidential acts, refusing to appropriate funds requested by president, laws limiting the president's power, amendments limiting the presidents power.......

You provide an example of the president being checked by opposition from people with political power.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Wrong; they are illegal and in order to own one, one must obtain a very difficult to obtain and expensive permit to own one.

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
Consistent with prior precedent, the court found machine guns to be “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

And that means the courts wrote a law - something the constitution says they can't do. Legislators should decide if machine guns are protected by the 2A.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

I doubt if beto has ever shot a gun in his life. But he loves to endanger people with cars as shown by his drunk driving car crash from 1998.

 

[Port Tack]

you could not come up with an intelligent response so you post this stupid shit?

 

[Port Tack]

Yes they are, you just have to have a license.
And bans were struck down when challenged.

If machine guns are legal but only if you have a license (so it's still constitutional) that means we could require a license for any gun and it would still be constitutional, right?

 

[Port Tack]

And yet you support letting people drive cars that do 3 times the legal speed limit??? Explain that.

Whenever you are discussing guns or gun control and someone brings up cars as some sort of comparison you know you are talking to a fucking idiot.

 

[Port Tack]

I will be more precise... legally you can own a machine gun, it just has to be pre 1986. The manufacture or import of them is banned. You can own one. But the lack of supply means they are very expensive.

And you must have a license to own one meaning it is either unconstitutional to require that license or it would be perfectly constitutional to require a license for any firearm, which is it?