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

originally posted by: narrator

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.

So should we restrict the rights of others due to your fears?

a reply to: narrator

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.

Who died and made you God?

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

What? Stingers and nuclear weapons? You forgot laser rays and pulse guns that make your organs explode when it hits you.

It's a bit hyperbolic, but it's a good question: Where is the line drawn with what's legal vs. illegal? Do you think there should be a line, or should all firearms be legal for citizens to own?

Well I don't think nuclear weapons and stingers count as a firearm.

originally posted by: narrator

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.

And they would (should) be held liable for any illegal action they perform using those firearms. EXISTING laws cove that eventuality. You being frightened does not automatically strip everyone of their rights.

"The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself". A very wise statement that applies to this topic. By succumbing to fear, we can make very bad judgements that curtail or strip people of their rights, without due process, and for no other reason than fear. So, we should keep a check upon our fears...basically.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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".

I didn't say I was scared. I said the idea is scary.

My bottom line is, I think there should be some common-sense restrictions, more than there are today. If a guy is demonstrating patterns that he may become a violent nationalist, or ISIS, or what have you, maybe they're just in a rough way and are really depressed, and they are a citizen, but they haven't actually broken any laws yet, you're saying they should be able to buy whatever they want because they're in good standing.

I disagree, and nothing is going to change my mind about that. Not every citizen "in good standing" should be allowed to own whatever firearm they want.

originally posted by: narrator

So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it?

That seems...unsafe.

This argument is so stagnant...so if you can't own a F-16 then we can regulate it then down to a BB gun... heard this one over and over.


"to bear" what one person typically does with a weapon designed to be held for single use... "To bear" is also associated to a civilian militia where they have their own weapon.

"Arms" a gun... Has been defined a number of times as in relationship to the 2nd and other areas, such as firearms...

Bear arms...a Gun that one person would use...

It is interesting they used "arms" and not "weapons" since even back then, as it is today, there was a difference in arms vs artillery, so I think we can say they didn't mean artillery as an option too.

originally posted by: narrator

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.

Then do not pretend the AR-15 is military grade.
Simple as that.


www.businessinsider.com...-m38-designated-marksman-rifle-12
Why is the ar-15 not on this list?
Why are the pistols and shotguns listed here not on your "need" list?

Singling out the ar-15 is a joke unless you intend to add it to the other readily available standard issue weapons given to a marine.

Can anyone tell me when a church or a school ever got shot up by an F-16 or Nuke?

a reply to: narrator

My bottom line is, I think there should be some common-sense restrictions, more than there are today. If a guy is demonstrating patterns that he may become a violent nationalist, or ISIS, or what have you, maybe they're just in a rough way and are really depressed, and they are a citizen, but they haven't actually broken any laws yet, you're saying they should be able to buy whatever they want because they're in good standing. I disagree, and nothing is going to change my mind about that. Not every citizen "in good standing" should be allowed to own whatever firearm they want.

So basically you are also against the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
You do not believe in due process?

interesting

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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".

I didn't say I was scared. I said the idea is scary.

My bottom line is, I think there should be some common-sense restrictions, more than there are today. If a guy is demonstrating patterns that he may become a violent nationalist, or ISIS, or what have you, maybe they're just in a rough way and are really depressed, and they are a citizen, but they haven't actually broken any laws yet, you're saying they should be able to buy whatever they want because they're in good standing.

I disagree, and nothing is going to change my mind about that. Not every citizen "in good standing" should be allowed to own whatever firearm they want.

Then you are in favor of "precog" enforcement? So, how have you perfected the mind reading to determine that someone WILL commit a crime before they do actually commit the crime?
And, is that precog process 100% accurate?
Can that precog process be used for political purposes?
Can that precog process be undermined against an innocent person by a conspiracy against them?

See, what you are advocating is punishing someone BEFORE they commit a crime. That, AFAIK is impossible to do today or in the near future. The only way to assure that is total domination and control of the population. That is NOT what I or others want. We will be satisfied with the risk based society that limits risk, and makes informed decisions based upon a probability risk analysis.....not baseless fear of what others MIGHT do.

You may not realize it, but that dystopian world is exactly what you are advocating for right here. All based upon fear.

Again, "The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself"

VERY wise words indeed.

Good lord, you all are so defensive.

-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.

Stop attacking the messenger. I'm just presenting a different viewpoint.

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is a great quote, and I agree with the sentiment completely.

I also agree with "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

If me giving up my right to own an AR-15 would save the life of even 1 child in a school shooting/church shooting/whatever, that's a sacrifice I'm very willing to comply with. That is my OPINION. I know y'all disagree with it.

Weapons used for hunting? I would not readily give them up.

I never said you all have to agree with me on any of this. I know y'all disagree. That's why I wanted to have the conversation, to understand where you're coming from instead of an endless barrage of "liberal snowflake babies", I wanted to hear actual thoughts.

Of course Mr. DINO is going to be the one to bring up gun control. Considering his history of support for GOP and Trump policies this just reminds me of that Steve Buscemi/30 Rock meme.

"How do you do, fellow Dems?"

a reply to: narrator

Good lord, you all are so defensive.

no
It would be no different were you to come after any other rights.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

Nothing beats a good stinger missile for hunting....an entire forest full of animals at once.

originally posted by: narrator

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?

No, a plane and missiles aren't considered firearms.

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

Nothing beats a good stinger missile for hunting....an entire forest full of animals at once.

Yes rabbits, and deer dare not fart.

Those damn heat seekers.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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".

I didn't say I was scared. I said the idea is scary.

My bottom line is, I think there should be some common-sense restrictions, more than there are today. If a guy is demonstrating patterns that he may become a violent nationalist, or ISIS, or what have you, maybe they're just in a rough way and are really depressed, and they are a citizen, but they haven't actually broken any laws yet, you're saying they should be able to buy whatever they want because they're in good standing.

I disagree, and nothing is going to change my mind about that. Not every citizen "in good standing" should be allowed to own whatever firearm they want.

Then you are in favor of "precog" enforcement? So, how have you perfected the mind reading to determine that someone WILL commit a crime before they do actually commit the crime?
And, is that precog process 100% accurate?
Can that precog process be used for political purposes?
Can that precog process be undermined against an innocent person by a conspiracy against them?

See, what you are advocating is punishing someone BEFORE they commit a crime. That, AFAIK is impossible to do today or in the near future. The only way to assure that is total domination and control of the population. That is NOT what I or others want. We will be satisfied with the risk based society that limits risk, and makes informed decisions based upon a probability risk analysis.....not baseless fear of what others MIGHT do.

You may not realize it, but that dystopian world is exactly what you are advocating for right here. All based upon fear.

Again, "The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself"

VERY wise words indeed.

I didn't say ANY of what you just re-organized my words to mean.

You're very disingenuous when you're debating. Almost like you're twisting words in order to use canned talking points over and over.

What I meant was, I think there are certain firearms that should not be allowed to be purchased by citizens, in case someone along those lines who wanted to do harm were to go out to try to buy one, it wouldn't be there for them to purchase. Similar to how the US deals with heroin and coc aine.

But, for the sake of argument, say I did mean to stop specific individuals from buying a firearm, and you're against that form of prevention, because there's no guarantee they're actually going to do something bad.

Does that mean you are against the Muslim ban, and the wall? Because those would prevent a ton of good people from coming to our country for no reason other than fear. The only argument for either of those is "some of them might do something bad".

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

Good lord, you all are so defensive.

no
It would be no different were you to come after any other rights.

Defensive to what I'm saying in a completely hypothetical debate.

I have no power to come after your rights.

Take a breath. This is all just a conversation.

a reply to: narrator

Does that mean you are against the Muslim ban, and the wall?

I am sure some of the survivors of Fort Hood,San Bernadino,Orlando, and Boston Marathon bombing might have agreed with it.

originally posted by: narrator
Good lord, you all are so defensive.

-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.

Stop attacking the messenger. I'm just presenting a different viewpoint.

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is a great quote, and I agree with the sentiment completely.

I also agree with "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

If me giving up my right to own an AR-15 would save the life of even 1 child in a school shooting/church shooting/whatever, that's a sacrifice I'm very willing to comply with. That is my OPINION. I know y'all disagree with it.

Weapons used for hunting? I would not readily give them up.

I never said you all have to agree with me on any of this. I know y'all disagree. That's why I wanted to have the conversation, to understand where you're coming from instead of an endless barrage of "liberal snowflake babies", I wanted to hear actual thoughts.

Did you or did you not say this:

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.

Why would that be dangerous unless you feared it would be. You are afraid that situation would result in someone's death (perhaps your own as a neighbor). See you refuse to admit you are afraid and basing your position upon that fear. And in fact your "opinion" is irrelevant here. What matters is the law, the United States Constitution to be exact. What you or I "feel" is a moot point if it results in some form of unconstitutional infringement of a citizen's rights.

I do not expect you to accept that fact though, because of your "feelz".