2020 Presidential Election

[GMDino]

(09-13-2019, 10:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would tend to agree. However, anyone who talks about it shouldn't get votes. Like it or not, it is a civil liberty that there is an individual right to gun ownership. Democrats have been tending to treat this issue as Republicans treat abortion. Find any way possible to skirt around the constitutional limitations in place on the government. It's wrong for abortion, it's wrong for gun rights. In both instances, the side doing it thinks they are doing it to save lives but really they are pushing to restrict the liberty of the citizens of the country in a way contrary to the ideals of the nation.

To the bold: I agree that's why I don't think it will ever happen.  People who propose it seriously won't make it far enough to even try to put into action nationally.

And to the rest: Yep.  That's why it's a non-issue with me.

And the Republicans WIN with their abortion issue but they still don't do anything about it on a national level.

[Belsnickel]

Post-debate analysis: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-september-poll/?utm_source=hive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hive_email_id_38792&h_sid=aed141f2f5-5a4d813039e415fbaae6f11b

[TheUberHuber]

(09-13-2019, 10:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would tend to agree. However, anyone who talks about it shouldn't get votes. Like it or not, it is a civil liberty that there is an individual right to gun ownership. Democrats have been tending to treat this issue as Republicans treat abortion. Find any way possible to skirt around the constitutional limitations in place on the government. It's wrong for abortion, it's wrong for gun rights. In both instances, the side doing it thinks they are doing it to save lives but really they are pushing to restrict the liberty of the citizens of the country in a way contrary to the ideals of the nation.

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 


I am no English major, but from the wording of the second amendment, you clearly do NOT have a constitutional right to keep an assault rifle in your closet. 


Since the NRA loves the slippery slope argument, I will counter with another. Since you think this wording gives you a constitutional right to keep assault rifles in your personal possession, (it doesn't) then I should also be be able to keep a fully functioning Titan 2 thermonuclear weapon. 

[Benton]

(09-13-2019, 11:12 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 


I am no English major, but from the wording of the second amendment, you clearly do NOT have a constitutional right to keep an assault rifle in your closet. 


Since the NRA loves the slippery slope argument, I will counter with another. Since you think this wording gives you a constitutional right to keep assault rifles in your personal possession, (it doesn't) then I should also be be able to keep a fully functioning Titan 2 thermonuclear weapon. 

Well it's illegal to own nuclear material without approval from the regulatory agency. I guess,technically, if you could afford it and were approved, you could, technically, own one.

The second, as all of the amendments, has limits. The question really isn't does it allow you to bear arms (it does), it's to what extent. 

Personally, I don't have any problem with people owning machine guns. If you want to go through the hoops, do it. I know guys who do and they're fun to operate. But I also think everyone who owns a firearm should have to up through some hoops.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(09-13-2019, 11:12 PM)HTheUberHuber Wrote:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 


I am no English major, but from the wording of the second amendment, you clearly do NOT have a constitutional right to keep an assault rifle in your closet. 


Since the NRA loves the slippery slope argument, I will counter with another. Since you think this wording gives you a constitutional right to keep assault rifles in your personal possession, (it doesn't) then I should also be be able to keep a fully functioning Titan 2 thermonuclear weapon. 

In my opinion, 

It's all about the commas. It is written that way to be a list, not a continuation of the sentence.

1. A well regulated Militia,
1a. Being necessary to the security of a free state,
2. The right of the people to bear Arms,
2a. Shall not be infringed.

It is against the law to own an Assault Rifle unless you have permission from the government to own one. An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle and the AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armilite Rifle, just like the AK in the AK 47 stands for Avtomat Kalasghnikova, the initials of the creator of the rifle.

The AR-15, Mini 14 and the M1A are all the same...pretty much. It's just the AR-15 looks scary.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-14-2019, 12:07 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: In my opinion, 

It's all about the commas. It is written that way to be a list, not a continuation of the sentence.

1. A well regulated Militia,
1a. Being necessary to the security of a free state,
2. The right of the people to bear Arms,
2a. Shall not be infringed.

It is against the law to own an Assault Rifle unless you have permission from the government to own one. An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle and the AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armilite Rifle, just like the AK in the AK 47 stands for Avtomat Kalasghnikova, the initials of the creator of the rifle.

The AR-15, Mini 14 and the M1A are all the same...pretty much. It's just the AR-15 looks scary.

Is a M16 or M4 an assault rifle?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-14-2019, 12:07 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: In my opinion, 

It's all about the commas. It is written that way to be a list, not a continuation of the sentence.

1. A well regulated Militia,
1a. Being necessary to the security of a free state,
2. The right of the people to bear Arms,
2a. Shall not be infringed.

It is against the law to own an Assault Rifle unless you have permission from the government to own one. An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle and the AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armilite Rifle, just like the AK in the AK 47 stands for Avtomat Kalasghnikova, the initials of the creator of the rifle.

The AR-15, Mini 14 and the M1A are all the same...pretty much. It's just the AR-15 looks scary.

A balanced breakfast, being necessary for the maintaining of good health, the right of the people to eat breakfast shall not be infringed.

As worded do you need to have a balanced breakfast if you eat breakfast?  Also, as is commonly ignored by gun grabbers, the militia was considered to be all men of fighting age, this was upheld by the SCOTUS in the 18th century.  Also ignored is that "well regulated" as used during that time meant "in good working order". 

Please note I know you're in agreement, I just didn't feel like feeding the trolls.

(09-14-2019, 12:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is a M16 or M4 an assault rifle?

Assault rifle includes the ability of selective fire.  No post NFA rifle has this ability.  An AR15 is functionally no different than a Mini-14, but no one is talking about confiscating them.  I'm glad Beto let the mask finally slip though.  We never have to hear the obvious lie that the Dems don't want to take away your guns.  Both Biden and Robert have said it now and no one on that stage made a peep to contradict Robert's statement.

[GMDino]

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/21-divide-and-conquer

I have recommended this podcast on numerous occasions...The episode link above concerns the wording of one of our favorite amendments, among other things.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

BTW, Dems love the idea of "red flag" gun confiscations, but not for documented gang members.  It's not like the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by a small amount of hard core criminal recidivists or anything.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-frown-on-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2019, 02:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A balanced breakfast, being necessary for the maintaining of good health, the right of the people to eat breakfast shall not be infringed.

As worded do you need to have a balanced breakfast if you eat breakfast?  Also, as is commonly ignored by gun grabbers, the militia was considered to be all men of fighting age, this was upheld by the SCOTUS in the 18th century.  Also ignored is that "well regulated" as used during that time meant "in good working order". 

Please note I know you're in agreement, I just didn't feel like feeding the trolls.


Assault rifle includes the ability of selective fire.  No post NFA rifle has this ability.  An AR15 is functionally no different than a Mini-14, but no one is talking about confiscating them.  I'm glad Beto let the mask finally slip though.  We never have to hear the obvious lie that the Dems don't want to take away your guns.  Both Biden and Robert have said it now and no one on that stage made a peep to contradict Robert's statement.

So it’s the selector switch that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle? Does that mean a M16 or M4 is only an assault rifle when the selector switch is set to burst? And when set to semi it isn’t an assault rifle? And what effect does the selector switch have on wound characteristics in semi vs burst?

Would a rifle with a selector switch firing .22LR from a 10 round mag be considered an assault rifle?

Nowadays you can purchase an AR15 with an upper receiver chambered for both .223 and 5.56 and when fired in semi there’s essentially no difference between an AR15 and M16A2. If you switch to burst you just burn through your ammo faster while sacrificing accuracy for the increased rate of fire. The tactical situations you would use burst are few and far between.

I disagree with confiscation as much as I disagree with the notion a selector switch is the only thing that makes an assault rifle an assault rife.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2019, 04:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I disagree with confiscation as much as I disagree with the notion a selector switch is the only thing that makes an assault rifle an assault rife.

The issue with what defines an assault rifle is that it is an arbitrary line. Opponents of gun control argue that the definitions used to define the term are cosmetic and hold no real value. This is why they tend to focus on the idea of the giggle switch being the determining factor as that is what differentiates the civilian versus military versions of the weapons. I, personally, don't know how much I agree with that, but I understand why they use that as the deciding factor as it is more than a cosmetic variance.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2019, 04:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So it’s the selector switch that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle? Does that mean a M16 or M4 is only an assault rifle when the selector switch is set to burst? And when set to semi it isn’t an assault rifle? And what effect does the selector switch have on wound characteristics in semi vs burst?

If it has selective fire capability it is an assault rifle.  

Quote:Would a rifle with a selector switch firing .22LR from a 10 round mag be considered an assault rifle?

That would be a carbine.  

Quote:Nowadays you can purchase an AR15 with an upper receiver chambered for both .223 and 5.56 and when fired in semi there’s essentially no difference between an AR15 and M16A2. If you switch to burst you just burn through your ammo faster while sacrificing accuracy for the increased rate of fire. The tactical situations you would use burst are few and far between.

I disagree with confiscation as much as I disagree with the notion a selector switch is the only thing that makes an assault rifle an assault rife.

You can get an AR chambered in .308 Winchester, .300 AAC, .458 SOCOM, numerous pistol rounds, etc.

If you disagree with the standard of definition used please provide an alternative definition.  I think we're hitting on an important point though.  That being that the term is utterly useless and really just a talking point for those who want to generate fear and ban what they choose to define as an "assault rifle".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2019, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If it has selective fire capability it is an assault rifle.  



That would be a carbine.  


You can get an AR chambered in .308 Winchester, .300 AAC, .458 SOCOM, numerous pistol rounds, etc.

If you disagree with the standard of definition used please provide an alternative definition.  I think we're hitting on an important point though.  That being that the term is utterly useless and really just a talking point for those who want to generate fear and ban what they choose to define as an "assault rifle".

There is no standard definition that’s why claiming a selector switch or a pistol grip constitutes an assault rifle is crap which is why I’m against bans or confiscation, but still in favor of gun control measures.

[TheUberHuber]

(09-16-2019, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, Dems love the idea of "red flag" gun confiscations, but not for documented gang members.  It's not like the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by a small amount of hard core criminal recidivists or anything.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-frown-on-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws

The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides 

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 04:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue with what defines an assault rifle is that it is an arbitrary line. Opponents of gun control argue that the definitions used to define the term are cosmetic and hold no real value. This is why they tend to focus on the idea of the giggle switch being the determining factor as that is what differentiates the civilian versus military versions of the weapons. I, personally, don't know how much I agree with that, but I understand why they use that as the deciding factor as it is more than a cosmetic variance.

If I were to define an assault rifle it would be: A rifle that is designed to have the capacity to fire more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2019, 06:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There is no standard definition that’s why claiming a selector switch or a pistol grip constitutes an assault rifle is crap which is why I’m against bans or confiscation, but still in favor of gun control measures.

A term with no definition is a useless term and should thus never be used.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 06:14 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides 

How many suicides are committed with AR-15s? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2019, 07:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many suicides are committed with AR-15s? 

I was ignoring that post as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Their dishonesty exposes the weakness of their position.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 07:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was ignoring that post as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Their dishonesty exposes the weakness of their position.

Unfortunately; that's not in my nature. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2019, 07:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A term with no definition is a useless term and should thus never be used.

There are plenty of definitions, just no standard definition universally agreed upon.