Do you support the second amendment?

[upant]

There is no way for law enforcement to stop a man with no felonies from purchasing a cheap $500 assault-style weapon and shooting up whatever he pleases in a moment of rage or zealotry.

so ban the ar and you don’t think he will use multiple hand guns? or even 1 gun with multiple mags?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The courts have obviously found the right to vote to be more fundamental than the right to bear arms,

why can you be allowed to charge to restrict one right and not the other.

a right is guaranteed and can not be taken away from you.

charging to keep guns from the poor is the same as charging so the poor can’t vote. a class of people is denied a right.

As I said, the courts have found otherwise.

 

[upant]

The assault weapons ban of the 90s and 00s applied to assault style semi-autos (which is what we’re talking about).

the manufacturers modified their products to be legal and still sold them.

crazyfornia will ban certain guns in jan 2018 but modified ones are already for sale and can be bought legally. in fact the modified ones are faster to reload than the banned ones.

 

[upant]

upant:

LeafByNiggle:

The courts have obviously found the right to vote to be more fundamental than the right to bear arms,

why can you be allowed to charge to restrict one right and not the other.

a right is guaranteed and can not be taken away from you.

charging to keep guns from the poor is the same as charging so the poor can’t vote. a class of people is denied a right.

As I said, the courts have found otherwise.

have they?

heller returned the fundamental right to the people.

they could have said the people don’t have a right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

upant:

LeafByNiggle:

The courts have obviously found the right to vote to be more fundamental than the right to bear arms,

why can you be allowed to charge to restrict one right and not the other.

a right is guaranteed and can not be taken away from you.

charging to keep guns from the poor is the same as charging so the poor can’t vote. a class of people is denied a right.

As I said, the courts have found otherwise.

have they?

heller returned the fundamental right to the people.

they could have said the people don’t have a right.

They also could have said that any restrictions on guns violate the 2nd amendment, but they didn’t. The Heller decision was quite narrow, only addressing the question of individual vs societal right to bear arms. They did not find that things like background checks, waiting periods, limitations in certain places, or on certain types of weapons were a violation.

By contrast, the courts have found that even blindness or illiteracy does not disqualify a person from voting. They have also found that poll taxes and are unconstitutional. So the idea that poll taxes are analogous to any restrictions on guns is unsupported by judical decisions.

 

[Theo520]

They also could have said that any restrictions on guns violate the 2nd amendment, but they didn’t. The Heller decision was quite narrow, only addressing the question of individual vs societal right to bear arms. They did not find that things like background checks, waiting periods, limitations in certain places, or on certain types of weapons were a violation.

By contrast, the courts have found that even blindness or illiteracy does not disqualify a person from voting. They have also found that poll taxes and are unconstitutional. So the idea that poll taxes are analogous to any restrictions on guns is unsupported by judical decisions.

I thought SCOTUS decides on the issues presented. Heller was quite significant, even if you think it was narrow.

Neither illiteracy nor blindness are grounds to not sell you a gun, no different than voting there.

Interestingly, a Felony conviction may prevent you from both voting and buying a gun, at least until your parole is complete.

Though not the same, there are parallels.

 

[JonNC]

what is a right?

define healthcare and what part of it is protected by the 9th amendment.

Implied in the right to life

healthcare isn’t guaranteed today. if you can’t pay for it you don’t get it? millions still don’t have it. how can this be if it is a right

Millions don’t have a printing press, or a firearm. These are rights, too, and the same thing applies. You have to pay for them. I have a right to access healthcare. I do not have a right to someone else’s labor or property to acquire them.

can services be rights? can services be guaranteed? what happens when no one can perform the service? what level of service is acceptable?

It is still a right, in that government cannot interfere with it. I have to buy a gun. I have to buy a newspaper. I have to buy a doctor’s service, but not a right to his service without paying for it. I don’t have a right to expect others to pay for it.
I can expect, however, that a right will not be interfered with by government

 

[JonNC]

You can buy an assault-style semi-auto for that. New!

And trust me fella, this ain’t the only one. I picked up a S&W Sport 2 for $499 plus tax when Buds had them on sale this year.

SPECIFICATIONS
Finish Black
Action Semi-Automatic
Caliber 223 Remington/5.56 NATO

It is a semi-auto. Not an assault weapon

 

[Vonsalza]

That ban was not against assault weapons, no matter how much the anti2nd crowd tried to change the meaning to fit their agenda. Assault weapons are, by definition, selectable or fully automatic.

Um… it was literally called “The Assault Weapons Ban” and the great majority of the firearms it applied to were semi-automatics; as automatics were already banned at that point.

You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about in this specific case.

Moreover, your deceptive need to clearly distinguish between fully automatic assault rifles and semi-automatic assault style weapons is laughable.
I’ve spent time on the range at Ft. Knox, KY and I own civilian AR style rifles presently.

The only difference between them? A selector switch and the corresponding sear. That’s literally it. Bolt, carrier, barrel, upper receiver, impingement system, stock, the materials all of it is made out of… All that stuff is literally interchangeable between the rifles. Many of the impingement ARs use “milspec” parts as a selling point - meaning “military specification”. They can and do sell those parts for military use.

“These aren’t military rifles!” is a factually silly objection.

It was sunset because, predictably, it was in no way effective because it targeted the law abiding.

Uh… no. This makes zero sense. They included a sunset provision in the bill because they knew it was a bad bill? :crazy_face:

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

There is no way for law enforcement to stop a man with no felonies from purchasing a cheap $500 assault-style weapon and shooting up whatever he pleases in a moment of rage or zealotry.

so ban the ar and you don’t think he will use multiple hand guns? or even 1 gun with multiple mags?

It would be an improvement. An AR is famous because it is rather accurate at range despite being designed as a rapid-fire infantry rifle. Aimed at center mass, I can still peg you with most ARs at 500 meters.

Now a handgun? Aimed at center mass, most 3-5 inch barrel handguns have excellent chances of still missing the target at 50 meters. Plus, the large-cap mags for handguns generally don’t cycle well. Finally, the power of a handgun bullet, while still lethal, is much less than that of a rifle round, even an intermediate round like the 5.56 the AR uses.

I’d still put a permit on semi-automatic handguns too, but if the killer used that instead of an AR, the body count would be lower, ceteris paribus.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vonsalza:

And I’m not calling for bans. I’m calling for increased restrictions

.

And what about when somebody else calls for “increased restrictions” Vonsalza as has happened time after time after time?

Where will YOU BE to help the victimized honest law-abiding citizen who has lost MORE of their rights?

I’ll tell you where you will be.

You will be the same “place” you have been in the past when this occurs.

NOWHERE to be found supporting our citizens who have had MORE RIGHTS ERODED AWAY.

This is incremental gun control Vonsalza.

And law-abiding supporters of our Constitution can see right through the double-speak and prevarication.

Supporters of our Constitution are not falling for it.

“Increased restrictions” is a glorified name for more gun banning (incrementally to be sure, but banning it is).

Congress shall make no law prohibiting this use by free citizens.

---

I asked Vonsalza why he ignores the most egregious violators of gun use (Governments) in his “prioritization”.

Vonsalza said . . .
.

Because I like solutions that are actually achievable.

.
So principles get tossed out the window for political expedience in your paradigm.

To readers of this thread please remember that kind of thinking.

YOU TOO, will be abandoned by gun-grabbers for what THEY term are “solutions” that they can fool the voters with, “solutions” that are “achievable”, “solutions” that result in gun bans aimed AGAINST YOU–The law-abiding citizen.

And when the can “achieve” MORE gun-banning, MORE gun-banning will take place from them (if you are foolish enough to trust people like this with your liberty).

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

And I’m not calling for bans. I’m calling for increased restrictions

Time after time? Sometimes a ban happens, but usually not. Flying was restricted immediately post-9/11, but we certainly didn’t ban it, did we? No. Of course not.

This is incremental gun control Vonsalza…

…Supporters of our Constitution are not falling for it.

Nowhere in the constitution are you given the right to any particular type of weapon; just “arms” in general. And the list of arms you’re permitted to own has already been quite shortened, I’m sure you agree.

The constitution simply does not guarantee your “right” to easily access an AR-15. I’ve read the 2nd many times. Never saw it.

To readers of this thread please remember that kind of thinking.

YOU TOO, will be abandoned by gun-grabbers for what THEY term are “solutions” that they can fool the voters with, “solutions” that are “achievable”, “solutions” that result in gun bans aimed AGAINST YOU–The law-abiding citizen.

And the reader should also note that the solution I’ve proposed still allows them to legally purchase these rifles, but it will make them more expensive. As a result, they will be less readily available which will affect the black-market supply of these weapons - making them safer.

And when the can “achieve” MORE gun-banning, MORE gun-banning will take place from them (if you are foolish enough to trust people like this with your liberty).

“People like this” have already banned fully automatic weapons for the general public. Most seem to think that was a pretty good idea.

If you’re afraid of tyranny, an AR-15 won’t solve your problem because the government has M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks. Against those, your AR might as well shoot bubbles…

Your vote was, is and will continue to be a far better weapon than anything you can buy at a gunshop.

 

[upant]

It is still a right, in that government cannot interfere with it.

i disagree. show me the history of the right to healthcare. we never had it and still don’t.

to be a right it has to be unalienable.

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away.

though i agree that the government should not interfere with it.

 

[upant]

you have a bias against the ar.

an ar is the demon because it looks like it was made for killing; whereas, a small glock is not so intimidating. however, a handgun can achieve the same results and is responsible for more deaths. if gun control folks wanted to stop the violence they wouldn’t be targeting the rifle but the handgun.

Aimed at center mass, I can still peg you with most ARs at 500 meters

but most shootings do not occur at this range or with an ar being used

most 3-5 inch barrel handguns have excellent chances of still missing the target at 50 meters.

this is true but is 50 meters the average distance of a mass killing? i could not find a statistic on the average distance

Plus, the large-cap mags for handguns generally don’t cycle well.

ar’s have the same issue especially the cheap guns and mags.

the power of a handgun bullet, while still lethal, is much less than that of a rifle round, even an intermediate round like the 5.56 the AR uses.

they both get the job done. for those who aren’t sure:

 

[upant]

it was literally called “The Assault Weapons Ban”

these same people do not know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

one even said large capacity mags would be no good once they were used?

in crazyfornia a current ban is being skirted by just removing the gimmicks on the gun. the modified legal gun can be reloaded faster than the ones banned.

 

[Vonsalza]

you have a bias against the ar.

No I don’t. I really like mine. All of them.

The AR is/was the pinnacle of assault rifles. For its substantial accuracy, it still retains a shocking amount of reliability. The loose operational tolerances generally required for mechanical reliability usually exist in-contra to the tight tolerances required for a precise weapon. The AR seems to exist in the best of both worlds.

…which makes the question of “should this be easily obtainable” a very viable one.

an ar is the demon because it looks like it was made for killing; whereas, a small glock is not so intimidating.

In fairness, that’s exactly what Stoner designed it for. With a particular target; people.
And plenty of folks think Glock handguns are intimidating.

however, a handgun can achieve the same results and is responsible for more deaths. if gun control folks wanted to stop the violence they wouldn’t be targeting the rifle but the handgun.

I think they do, in fairness. This discussion narrowed in on assault style weapons, but I agree; the $350 plastic Glock (as a concept, not specifically targeting one make/model) is the bigger problem. It’s even cheaper and far more concealable.

As you other bullet-points seem to agree, an AR is just deadlier further and in more applications. But I totally agree - 10 feet out they’re roughly equally lethal. Particularly to gypsum board.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Vonsalza,

Please review your history of the AR.

And all of the bureaucratic “modifications” and changes made to it when it became the M-16 and etc.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza,

Please review your history of the AR.

And all of the bureaucratic “modifications” and changes made to it when it became the M-16 and etc.

The only difference in the production line between the military M16/4s and civilian models at Colt when they made these things was the differences in the lower receivers (I say “made” because I don’t know if Colt is still pumping them out now that the army is moving toward the SCAR).

Civilian models didn’t have the selector switch and sear it interfaced, the military ones did. The other 99.99% of the rifles are literally the same between military and civilian production lines. Any other difference would be on a special ordered basis.

The impingement AR you buy at the gunshop and the newly issued US Army general infantry rifle are literally the same gun except for the selector. That’s it. They even advertise “milspec” when selling them.

 

[JonNC]

Um… it was literally called “The Assault Weapons Ban” and the great majority of the firearms it applied to were semi-automatics; as automatics were already banned at that point.

And they called Obama’s healthcare act, “The Affordable Care Act”, and it has made healthcare anything but affordable. Simply accepting the redefining by some members of Congress or the anti-2nd movement isn’t something I’m tied to. Assault weapons are automatic.
But if you want to use the term, make sure people understand the difference.

In the late 1980s, more than two decades after the AR-15 was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a systematic campaign to conflate it and other “military-style” firearms with machine guns. The media followed suit, and soon the American public began to think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.

The fact is that all semi-automatic firearms work the same way: one pull of the trigger, one round fired.

All of these are semi automatic. They are the firearms of choice in the United States.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It is still a right, in that government cannot interfere with it.

i disagree. show me the history of the right to healthcare. we never had it and still don’t.

to be a right it has to be unalienable.

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away.

though i agree that the government should not interfere with it.

Where we disagree then, is the extension of the right to life to include healthcare. That’s okay, but if we view it as a privilege, then progressives will act as they are, trying to control it