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

a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

originally posted by: neo96
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.

And I'm sure that many of the countless victims in school shootings, church shootings, etc. would agree with what I'm proposing.

People are going to kill other people. It's going to happen. All I'm proposing is to make it harder for one person to kill another.

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

originally posted by: narrator

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.

And Mexicans weren't around when the 14th was written for emancipated slaves. So I guess I can use your argument next time the 14th is brought up for illegal aliens.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?

ETA: Just looking for a yes or no answer on that one.

a reply to: narrator

And I'm sure that many of the countless victims in school shootings, church shootings, etc. would agree with what I'm proposing.

Because their idiots that have never bothered reading the National Firearms Act,Gun Control Act,Brady handgun violence protection act, and the Gun free zone Act.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Then I'll rephrase my question. Why should we restrict someone's freedoms because you think it is stupid?

originally posted by: narrator
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".

Yes. yes you did....you want people that MIGHT do something bad prevented form owning a legal firearm.

More deflection I see. Please, show me what Constitutional amendment covers those? We are discussing the 2nd Amendment, an actual amendment which clearly states, "shall not be infringed". Whether you like it or not. that is the law....the supreme law.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Then your for banning hunting rifles, and handguns.

Because they're all more powerful than the AR.

But then again our rights don't come from each other.

Never have.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator

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.

And Mexicans weren't around when the 14th was written for emancipated slaves. So I guess I can use your argument next time the 14th is brought up for illegal aliens.

awww man don't make them responsible for the ideas they post.....

a reply to: narrator

Take a breath. This is all just a conversation.

all made up on your part
cool as a cucumber on a december day here
interesting you would assume such tho

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?

I do not.

I consider it a weapon that's very efficient at firing multiple rounds when the idea is to go for overall accuracy rather than precision, and to hit a general target multiple times in a short period of time.

Like it or not, AR-15s, and similar firearms, are designed to do this exact thing. Kill a lot of people rather efficiently. That seems like something that probably shouldn't be available for purchase by anyone who isn't a convicted felon.

I always feel the need to add, I actually own an AR-15. It's fun to shoot. It also serves no real purpose for me, as I am not in the business of killing people.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Then your for banning hunting rifles, and handguns.

Because they're all more powerful than the AR.

But then again our rights don't come from each other.

Never have.

I was referring to a TANK. Not a gun.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?

I do not.

I consider it a weapon that's very efficient at firing multiple rounds when the idea is to go for overall accuracy rather than precision, and to hit a general target multiple times in a short period of time.

Like it or not, AR-15s, and similar firearms, are designed to do this exact thing. Kill a lot of people rather efficiently. That seems like something that probably shouldn't be available for purchase by anyone who isn't a convicted felon.

I always feel the need to add, I actually own an AR-15. It's fun to shoot. It also serves no real purpose for me, as I am not in the business of killing people.

Then yours must be defective.

Since it was 'designed to kill lot of people rather efficiently'.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.

I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing. So, I'm backed by actual laws as well. Not hyperbole and deflection. I've deflected zero times in this discussion. I've also attacked zero people on a personal level, whereas you and at least 2 other people have done precisely that to me.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?

I do not.

I consider it a weapon that's very efficient at firing multiple rounds when the idea is to go for overall accuracy rather than precision, and to hit a general target multiple times in a short period of time.

Like it or not, AR-15s, and similar firearms, are designed to do this exact thing. Kill a lot of people rather efficiently. That seems like something that probably shouldn't be available for purchase by anyone who isn't a convicted felon.

I always feel the need to add, I actually own an AR-15. It's fun to shoot. It also serves no real purpose for me, as I am not in the business of killing people.

Then yours must be defective.

Since it was 'designed to kill lot of people rather efficiently'.

What I mean is, it was designed to do something I'm never going to do.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

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

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

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.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Then your for banning hunting rifles, and handguns.

Because they're all more powerful than the AR.

But then again our rights don't come from each other.

Never have.

I was referring to a TANK. Not a gun.

Again, what the issue with that, if it is legal? If the owner follows all existing laws, there is no danger. right? But, you fear that owner might use that tank to kill someone (i.e. breaking many already existing laws). Well, if they are determined to do that, then they will break whatever law stand in their way.

But, you want to prevent them, meaning you expect them to break the law....you fear they will kill someone.

Too bad, your fear does not warrant infringement upon others rights.

a reply to: narrator

I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing.

No it doesn't.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your parroting the losing dissenting opinion.

Doesn't make you right.

I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing.

You will kindly site the scotus ruling banning ar-15s?
I am not familiar with that.