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

[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.

It has to be pre 1986? Isn't that unconstitutional or would it be constitutional if all guns had a similar restriction. The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly constitutional if laws were passed banning certain weapons. There is no question about that, we already do it.

 

[Yurt]

What features of the AR 15 make it dangerous? Give us YOUR list.

What's dangerous about an inanimate object? Did you get a paper cut on your hand and want to blame the paper?

Is there a difference between a 3 inch switch blade and a 5 inch buck knife?

 

[Port Tack]

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

They did a pretty good job of defining just what an assault rifle is which is something the right always seems to say cannot be done. it's rather easy.

 

[Port Tack]

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.



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.



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.



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!!!

You are a complete jackass not to mention a fucking dick. You twist a reasonable response into something it doesn't say every time.

 

[Yurt]

Even though Superfreak is a freak, he is kicking ass in this thread.

Hope you stay around Superfreak.

 

[Port Tack]

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.

More are committed with handguns because millions of them are floating around and they are cheap and sold like candy to anyone who wants one.

 

[Port Tack]

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

Which also means that any rapid fire "assault type" weapon could also be "not protected" by the 2nd amendment if our society so chose.

 

[Port Tack]

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

So it is perfectly constitutional if all guns required what is required to get a fully automatic?

 

[Port Tack]

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.

Making them illegal so they could not be sold does not mean anyone is going to be confiscating them.

 

[CFM]

Is there a difference between a 3 inch switch blade and a 5 inch buck knife?

Not really.

There isn't a difference in the Ruger Mini 14 and the AR-15. However, my neighbor, an "educated" left winger, had no problem with the former but thought the latter should absolutely be banned. Both are semi-automatic, fire the same caliber, and have the same size magazine. Her opinion was based purely on looks.

 

[Port Tack]

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.

For all practical purposes we cannot amend the constitution as long as the 2 parties have a somewhat equal control in govt. They despise one another and whatever the democrat wants to amend the republican will be against and visa versa. Neither side will ever be able to gain the votes to amend the constitution. unless of course we have a real dipshit from one party gaining power that completely turns everyone against that particular party. Trump is a good example, if the blue wave that turned the house blue continues and turns the senate blue by a wide margin and we dump the dipshit for a democrat I suppose we could begin to fix things. As it stands now congress has a dismal rating and has for decades because they can't do a fucking thing but bitch about one another.

 

[Port Tack]

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.

I doubt it. roughly 80% of the country wants some type of universal healthcare and they stand little chance of getting it because of the shitheads in congress.

 

[Port Tack]

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.

What the hell is a "muh constitution"?

 

[CFM]

Making them illegal so they could not be sold does not mean anyone is going to be confiscating them.

Making them illegal so they could not be sold won't prevent those that don't abide by laws from getting them. I have an idea. Let's make murder, rape, robbery, and all sort of other crimes illegal so they no longer occur.

The only people that are affected by what you support are those that aren't going to do with the gun you want banned the acts you use to support banning those guns.

 

[Port Tack]

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.

Really, and they should decide if ballistic missiles, tanks and nuclear weapons are covered because they are "arms" too. Obviously the right to "bear arms" does not mean all of them. The supreme court has already ruled that govt can restrict just what arms you are allowed to have so that ruling is now what the constitution says.

 

[Port Tack]

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.

Fucking idiots like you just drag a forum down, they should just ban idiots like you.

 

[CFM]

Which also means that any rapid fire "assault type" weapon could also be "not protected" by the 2nd amendment if our society so chose.

It's not society that's choosing. It's pussies like you supporting it and pussies like the legislators that use emotion rather than logic that are choosing.

 

[CFM]

Fucking idiots like you just drag a forum down, they should just ban idiots like you.

Just another example of you thinking things you don't like should be banned because YOU don't like them.

 

[Port Tack]

Even though Superfreak is a freak, he is kicking ass in this thread.

Hope you stay around Superfreak.

kicking ass? He has openly said it's constitutional to own a machine gun if you have a license. That means it's constitutional to require a license for any firearm. You agree with that? Does he agree with that?

 

[Port Tack]

Making them illegal so they could not be sold won't prevent those that don't abide by laws from getting them. I have an idea. Let's make murder, rape, robbery, and all sort of other crimes illegal so they no longer occur.

The only people that are affected by what you support are those that aren't going to do with the gun you want banned the acts you use to support banning those guns.

It won't prevent the criminal from getting one but it sure will make it harder. Now make it illegal for anyone but a licensed dealer to sell one and it will be harder still. now make it a felony to sell one without using a licensed dealer and it will be harder still. Now when you catch that criminal double his sentence if he does not disclose where he got the gun and it will be harder still for him to get his hands on one.

These are all measures that take time, gun violence isn't going away overnight but give it 20 yrs and we will have a significant drop all while still allowing the law abiding citizen to own a gun. The right are the assholes that will cause that law abiding citizen to lose his gun. Sooner or later society will be fed up with daily massacres and we risk losing all of them.