Beto O’Rourke: Ban AR-15 Sales in America

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

Your neighbor ain't rich enough to have either, or the real estate to play with one.

There is absolutely no way for you to actually know that.

But, what if he is? My neighbor actually DOES have the real estate to play with one (being in ranch country), and he actually already has a runway in one of his fields. It would need lengthened, but doable on his property.

Now let's say he's a billionaire. He has the real estate necessary to take off and land, and the money to buy the plane and the missiles.

Should it be legal for him to do so?

Own a tank.

www.drivetanks.com...

Own a AA gun

www.militaryfactory.com...

www.rockislandauction.com...

Own a submarine

www.themodernrogue.com...

Own a mini gun

www.everydaynodaysoff.com...

a reply to: narrator

Your neighbors are billionaires?

99% of us don't have billionaire neighbors.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

Not really.
You asked for the purpose or need and I showed you the founders purpose and need.
That hasn't changed.
People were murdered with guns in the founders time, and they did not take every ones guns, did they?

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation
James Madison

Even back in the day they KNEW this was an advantage the people would ultimately have over the government, and would keep the government in check.
There are lots of uses for the AR-15: hunting, target practice(being part of a well regulated militia), competitive sport shooting. The founders knew of the need and included the 2nd.
At the time when the second was written the people could keep the same weapons as any soldier.
Why would time change that?

The AR-15 wasn't a gun when the 2nd was written, so using that as part of the argument is disingenuous.

I know there are reasons to own an AR-15 (you don't hunt with it, unless you're popping off coyotes, and even then I wouldn't recommend it as an actual hunting rifle is better suited), such as target practice. But is that a real reason? You can target practice with any of my other 6 guns, and they all have an actual real-life purpose.

Bottom line, I, being the owner of an AR-15 (that's admittedly a ton of fun to shoot), would be perfectly ok with government regulations being put on rifles of that nature.

Hunting rifles, shotguns, etc? Totally different story.

a reply to: dfnj2015

There is no line. All weapons are free to be owned based on our god given right off self protection.

Jaden

a reply to: narrator

The AR-15 wasn't a gun when the 2nd was written, so using that as part of the argument is disingenuous.

That is disingenous.

Computers,smart phones, tablets,internet wasn't invented.

So stop using them to practice your first.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: shooterbrody

What was the purpose for the founders to put the 2nd in? It had a purpose, and a need. Those have not gone away.

It was a swiss army knife or todays multi tool.

A cure all for whatever happens.

Personally I would submit whatever the average gi joe soldier is issued should be available to the people, as the people are intended to be able to be a check against such.

originally posted by: narrator

... SNIPPED FOR READABILITY ---

I'm not going for a gotcha or anything like that, I legitimately want to have a conversation about this with someone who has different views than I do.

On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off.
So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
Where should one draw the line? Personally, I think there really isn't a valid reason to own a semi-auto firearm, such as an AR. That's coming from someone who actually owns one. There's no real reason for me to have that rifle. The main one I hear is "protection", other than "it's my constitutional right to own it".
Protect my home from someone far away? My 30-06 would be much better.
Closer range protection? My 12 gauge would be much better.
Protection on the move? Either of my handguns would be better.
Protecting my home from the government? Let's be honest with ourselves, that isn't going to happen. If the government actually wanted to overthrow the populace, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of defending ourselves, because they wouldn't even send ground troops right away. They'd bring in said F-16s with missiles and wipe most of us out without ever stepping on our property.
(Not that I think that would happen, ever, because it won't).

So, why do I have the gun? It's fun to shoot. That isn't really a good enough reason to own it.

And since the SCOTUS ruled that the government can regulate weapons, I would be willing to give back my AR-15 if it came to that. It's just not worth the hassle. My hunting rifles and shotguns? I'd put up way more of a fight about it, as those serve actual purposes.
That's why I'm ok with regulating firearms. If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.

Well, again I defer to the original terms and original dictionary of the period to interpret the word "arms" (as in kee and bear arms). Arms at the time were defined thusly:


More specifically, a firearm was defined as:


Now, I will defer the the term "firearm" for this discussion as I believe the founders did mean that in the amendment. However, keep in mind, it also did include cannons as arms as well. And, before it devolves into the minutia, this also included the powder and ball (i.e. ammunition) as part of the amendment protections....since a firearm without ammunition if hardly effective or "well regulated".

So, firearms to them it meant, plainly, guns. So, to answer your question, a U.S. citizen (in good standing, I'll defer to that as well) should be allowed to keep and bear ANY gun they wish....without undue restrictions upon ownership, carry, or use. Now, "use" here means "all lawful purposes" as was intended.

In this case, an F-16, missiles, and nukes are not classified as "arms" or "firearms" are they? So, using them in this discussion is a failed attempt at hyperbole to derail the conversation into absurdity.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

Your neighbors are billionaires?

99% of us don't have billionaire neighbors.

Haha, he isn't actually. But I was using it as an example, he could be. Should he be allowed to, if he could buy it?

And as for the links you posted...it's one thing to own a tank/submarine/mini gun/etc, it's an entirely different thing to own them with a working firing mechanism and active rounds to fire with the tank.

That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.

www.quora.com...

The average person could fire a musket about 3 times a minute, then there's hitting a moving target 3 times in quick succession without a rifled barrel.

a reply to: shooterbrody

That was the idea.

The people on an equal footing with the state.

But nope.



We can't be 'trusted'.

a reply to: narrator

And as for the links you posted...it's one thing to own a tank/submarine/mini gun/etc, it's an entirely different thing to own them with a working firing mechanism and active rounds to fire with the tank

Looks like FUN!

a reply to: narrator

You failed to acknowledge this:

At the time when the second was written the people could keep the same weapons as any soldier. Why would time change that?

as I posted, lots of reasons, the need was demonstrated by the quotes and actions of the founders.

Time has not changed that need. That need has been demonstrated globally by nations all over the planet in the time since the founders included the 2nd. That reflects on the wisdom of the founders imo.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

... SNIPPED FOR READABILITY ---

I'm not going for a gotcha or anything like that, I legitimately want to have a conversation about this with someone who has different views than I do.

On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off.
So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
Where should one draw the line? Personally, I think there really isn't a valid reason to own a semi-auto firearm, such as an AR. That's coming from someone who actually owns one. There's no real reason for me to have that rifle. The main one I hear is "protection", other than "it's my constitutional right to own it".
Protect my home from someone far away? My 30-06 would be much better.
Closer range protection? My 12 gauge would be much better.
Protection on the move? Either of my handguns would be better.
Protecting my home from the government? Let's be honest with ourselves, that isn't going to happen. If the government actually wanted to overthrow the populace, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of defending ourselves, because they wouldn't even send ground troops right away. They'd bring in said F-16s with missiles and wipe most of us out without ever stepping on our property.
(Not that I think that would happen, ever, because it won't).

So, why do I have the gun? It's fun to shoot. That isn't really a good enough reason to own it.

And since the SCOTUS ruled that the government can regulate weapons, I would be willing to give back my AR-15 if it came to that. It's just not worth the hassle. My hunting rifles and shotguns? I'd put up way more of a fight about it, as those serve actual purposes.
That's why I'm ok with regulating firearms. If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.

Well, again I defer to the original terms and original dictionary of the period to interpret the word "arms" (as in kee and bear arms). Arms at the time were defined thusly:

More specifically, a firearm was defined as:

Now, I will defer the the term "firearm" for this discussion as I believe the founders did mean that in the amendment. However, keep in mind, it also did include cannons as arms as well. And, before it devolves into the minutia, this also included the powder and ball (i.e. ammunition) as part of the amendment protections....since a firearm without ammunition if hardly effective or "well regulated".

So, firearms to them it meant, plainly, guns. So, to answer your question, a U.S. citizen (in good standing, I'll defer to that as well) should be allowed to keep and bear ANY gun they wish....without undue restrictions upon ownership, carry, or use. Now, "use" here means "all lawful purposes" as was intended.

In this case, an F-16, missiles, and nukes are not classified as "arms" or "firearms" are they? So, using them in this discussion is a failed attempt at hyperbole to derail the conversation into absurdity.

So when they said arms, they specifically meant firearms/guns, and not just weapons in general? Ok, I can go along with that.

The jet is hyperbole. How about a mini-gun? An MG-42 or an MG-Browning? A random citizen owning those is almost scarier than the F-16/missile idea.

All I'm saying is, there should be a line somewhere.

a reply to: shooterbrody

F16s and nukes weren't invented when the second was written, but it doesn't stop them from drawing false equivalences.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

And as for the links you posted...it's one thing to own a tank/submarine/mini gun/etc, it's an entirely different thing to own them with a working firing mechanism and active rounds to fire with the tank

Looks like FUN!

Oh I agree, I'm sure it'd be an absolute blast. I'd rather that not be in the hands of anyone able to purchase them though. You listen to what celebrities say nowadays? None of them are sane, and they're all rich enough to buy one of those things.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

... SNIPPED FOR READABILITY ---

I'm not going for a gotcha or anything like that, I legitimately want to have a conversation about this with someone who has different views than I do.

On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off.
So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
Where should one draw the line? Personally, I think there really isn't a valid reason to own a semi-auto firearm, such as an AR. That's coming from someone who actually owns one. There's no real reason for me to have that rifle. The main one I hear is "protection", other than "it's my constitutional right to own it".
Protect my home from someone far away? My 30-06 would be much better.
Closer range protection? My 12 gauge would be much better.
Protection on the move? Either of my handguns would be better.
Protecting my home from the government? Let's be honest with ourselves, that isn't going to happen. If the government actually wanted to overthrow the populace, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of defending ourselves, because they wouldn't even send ground troops right away. They'd bring in said F-16s with missiles and wipe most of us out without ever stepping on our property.
(Not that I think that would happen, ever, because it won't).

So, why do I have the gun? It's fun to shoot. That isn't really a good enough reason to own it.

And since the SCOTUS ruled that the government can regulate weapons, I would be willing to give back my AR-15 if it came to that. It's just not worth the hassle. My hunting rifles and shotguns? I'd put up way more of a fight about it, as those serve actual purposes.
That's why I'm ok with regulating firearms. If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.

Well, again I defer to the original terms and original dictionary of the period to interpret the word "arms" (as in kee and bear arms). Arms at the time were defined thusly:

More specifically, a firearm was defined as:

Now, I will defer the the term "firearm" for this discussion as I believe the founders did mean that in the amendment. However, keep in mind, it also did include cannons as arms as well. And, before it devolves into the minutia, this also included the powder and ball (i.e. ammunition) as part of the amendment protections....since a firearm without ammunition if hardly effective or "well regulated".

So, firearms to them it meant, plainly, guns. So, to answer your question, a U.S. citizen (in good standing, I'll defer to that as well) should be allowed to keep and bear ANY gun they wish....without undue restrictions upon ownership, carry, or use. Now, "use" here means "all lawful purposes" as was intended.

In this case, an F-16, missiles, and nukes are not classified as "arms" or "firearms" are they? So, using them in this discussion is a failed attempt at hyperbole to derail the conversation into absurdity.

So when they said arms, they specifically meant firearms/guns, and not just weapons in general? Ok, I can go along with that.

The jet is hyperbole. How about a mini-gun? An MG-42 or an MG-Browning? A random citizen owning those is almost scarier than the F-16/missile idea.

All I'm saying is, there should be a line somewhere.

Nope, all firearms. Their efficiency and rate of fire is irrelevant. The purpose was as a deterrent to government. So, any firearm the the government military has, should be allowed to be owned by private citizens....or else they would not be on equal footing (with regards to firearms).

The fact you are scared is irrelevant....sorry to break that to you. Your fear shall not infringe upon my right if I am living within the established laws of the country and using my firearms for "all lawful purposes".

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

There is no line.

The reasoning behind the second as a last ditch defence against a totalitarian state.

When speech fails.

When court fails.

There's no problem the proper amount of lead flying can't solve.

So what you're saying is, given that they have the means to buy it, a citizen should be legally allowed to own ANY firearm they want to own?

Yes, a citizen without a felony or mental health issue should be able to own any firearm (a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun) of their choosing.

Tell ya what.

I'd love to have 4 of these to put around my bunker entrances.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

You failed to acknowledge this:

At the time when the second was written the people could keep the same weapons as any soldier. Why would time change that?

as I posted, lots of reasons, the need was demonstrated by the quotes and actions of the founders.

Time has not changed that need. That need has been demonstrated globally by nations all over the planet in the time since the founders included the 2nd. That reflects on the wisdom of the founders imo.

And I just completely disagree with that. GIs go through months of training. The average citizen does not, they just go to a store and buy the gun. You can't compare the two, it's apples to watermelons.