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

[StoneByStone]

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.

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.

[domer76]

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.

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.

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Cheney shot his lawyer!

HAHAHA. Yes - i forgot about that. That got swept under the rug too.

[Text Drivers are Killers]

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

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."

[Superfreak]

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.

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.

[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/a...ds-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/a...ds-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/entry...b09b4c43c03f30

[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/entry...b09b4c43c03f30

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.