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

domer76 said:
Tell us again. Why don’t you see any shootings with machine guns?
Click to expand...

Because most are done with handguns, due to their ease in carrying and concealment most likely. Also there's cost, but I've long held that poor 'people' shouldn't have the same rights as a well to do white man like myself so...
 
LV426 said:
O'Rourke should have run for Senate in Texas instead of POTUS.

It doesn't matter who is President if Mitch McConnell can control what gets a vote in the upper chamber, and Beto could beat Cornyn if he utilizes the state infrastructure he set up in 2018.
Click to expand...

You mean like Dingy Harry did when he was in that position?
 
StoneByStone said:
No it hasn't.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/these-are-the-presidents-who-violated-the-constitution-and-how-donald-trump-compares.html/
Click to expand...

I notice it does not list the times presidential actions have been overturned by the courts or congress.

1. Trump had his travel ban overturned. The cheat sheet examples are stupid. The government has not restricted freedom of the press and there is no such thing as "undermining the freedom of the press.

2. Obama had the PACA executive order was blocked.

3. Truman's seizure of the steel mills was struck down.

4. The internment of the Japanese was struck down.

5. Congress put restrictions on the president's war powers and impoundment.

6. The courts have upheld (and expanded) the regulation of interstate commerce and that was a congressional action (Agricultural Adjustment Act) passed by Congress, not a presidential violation.

I'm sure I can think of some more.
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
Because most are done with handguns, due to their ease in carrying and concealment most likely. Also there's cost, but I've long held that poor 'people' shouldn't have the same rights as a well to do white man like myself so...
Click to expand...

You're against the Constitution and the will of the founding fathers.
Your views are along the lines of Hitler and Rump
 
StoneByStone said:
Because that wasn't the point of the article. The point was to list examples of times that presidents violated muh Constitution.
Click to expand...

That was not the point of the article but it was the point of my post which disagreed with your statement that the "... Constitution does not protect our rights because, historically, presidents have ignored it." I was showing that historically presidents who ignored the Constitution often were thwarted in those efforts. Also, to point out the article was not a very creditable source.
 
Flash said:
That was not the point of the article but it was the point of my post which disagreed with your statement that the "... Constitution does not protect our rights because, historically, presidents have ignored it." I was showing that historically presidents who ignored the Constitution often were thwarted in those efforts. Also, to point out the article was not a very creditable source.
Click to expand...

They weren't thwarted because of muh Constitution. They were thwarted because America has checks and balances, so the president doesn't have absolute power. Muh Constitution didn't prevent America from having slavery or internment camps. What eliminated those things was a change in culture and who was in power.
 
StoneByStone said:
They weren't thwarted because of muh Constitution. They were thwarted because America has checks and balances, so the president doesn't have absolute power. Muh Constitution didn't prevent America from having slavery or internment camps. What eliminated those things was a change in culture and who was in power.
Click to expand...


It has checks and balances because they are contained in the Constitution. It did not prevent slavery because it was expressly provided for. The culture did change to prohibit slavery but it was only changed because it was amended which is one of the checks and balances in the document. The checks and balances contained in the document protected those rights.
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
Because most are done with handguns, due to their ease in carrying and concealment most likely. Also there's cost, but I've long held that poor 'people' shouldn't have the same rights as a well to do white man like myself so...
Click to expand...

The correct answer is that they have been banned for a long time.
 
Flash said:
It has checks and balances because they are contained in the Constitution. It did not prevent slavery because it was expressly provided for. The culture did change to prohibit slavery but it was only changed because it was amended which is one of the checks and balances in the document. The checks and balances contained in the document protected those rights.
Click to expand...

Well if the culture had to change to end slavery, then obviously that piece of paper wasn't enough to prevent slavery. Sure, we amended muh Constitution. And if the culture ever turns against free speech, then we'll just amend it again. This shows how useless muh Constitution really is. Not only can we ignore it, we can change it too.
 
StoneByStone said:
Well if the culture had to change to end slavery, then obviously that piece of paper wasn't enough to prevent slavery. Sure, we amended muh Constitution. And if the culture ever turns against free speech, then we'll just amend it again. This shows how useless muh Constitution really is. Not only can we ignore it, we can change it too.
Click to expand...

The Constitution did not seek to prevent slavery but to allow it. You can't fault it for something it did not intend to do. We all know if they had tried to outlaw slavery the Constitution would never have been ratified by the necessary 9 states. Sometimes political compromises have to be made to accomplish a more important task.

It specifically allowed for change to prevent it from becoming obsolete. That does not make it useless but a document able to adapt to change; otherwise, it would not have lasted.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
This is silly. You can't ban AR-15s because the manufacturers will just change the name. You'd have to ban all semi-automatic weapons. BTW - drunk drivers (like convicted DUI beto) kill a hundred times as many americans as AR-15 owners.
Click to expand...

No, YOU are silly...because if you not only ban the weapon but all the cute little tricks that manufacturers and sellers used to get around the law, then you effectively put a serious damper on evil doers ability to get the damned things.
 
Flash said:
The Constitution did not seek to prevent slavery but to allow it. You can't fault it for something it did not intend to do. We all know if they had tried to outlaw slavery the Constitution would never have been ratified by the necessary 9 states. Sometimes political compromises have to be made to accomplish a more important task.

It specifically allowed for change to prevent it from becoming obsolete. That does not make it useless but a document able to adapt to change; otherwise, it would not have lasted.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, YOU are silly...because if you not only ban the weapon but all the cute little tricks that manufacturers and sellers used to get around the law, then you effectively put a serious damper on evil doers ability to get the damned things.
Click to expand...

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.
 
StoneByStone said:
Because that wasn't the point of the article. The point was to list examples of times that presidents violated muh Constitution.
Click to expand...

Obama admitted he violated the constitution 800,000 times when he started DACA and gave 800,000 illegals a card saying that can live and work here even though the law says they can't. That was in direct violation of the constitutional clause that says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
 
Port Tack said:
How could they be illegal if the constitution says you can bear arms? Would not a machine gun be considered "arms"? Or is it because the supreme court has already ruled that govt can restrict which ones you can own meaning it's perfectly constitutional if they outlawed all semi auto rifles. I think that would be stupid but it's certainly not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top