forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

Here we go again with a basic lack of understanding of what a rifle is.

People literally want to ban a brand name.

Without understanding what the difference is, if any, other than semantics and appearance between an AR and a rifle - how many times do we have to go through this?

That’s like saying you want to ban Coca-Cola, but Check cola, RC cola, and all the other colas are OK. They’re all sugar water.

Please educate yourselves then we can come back and discuss it.
 
Advertisement
Suhrthing said:
Do you know how many crimes have been committed with legally owned automatic rifles? You should google it.
Click to expand...
Will do.

Off the top of my head, though, Newtown, Parkland, the Chicago area massacre, the church and school shootings in TX. Weren't those all done with legally-owned rapid fire weapons?
 
Suhrthing said:
WTF is a rapid-fire rifle?

No 'idiot' can just get one. Do you know how expensive and rare automatic weapons are on the US market? It's easier to find a US-made one in Afghanistan!

Go bring back the APCs, Blackhawks and M16's you left in AFG before you lecture us on the dangers of American and their firearms.
Click to expand...
One that'll take out a couple of rooms of school children in a few bursts? That's my definition. If that was the wrong term, feel free to insert your own.
 
Semi-auto, automatic? Who tf cares about theterminology. Focius on the 'results" these weapons can and do produce in a matter of seconds.
 
Advertisement
hotshot said:
I think it's a legit question when the weapon(s) we're talking about can kill so many in a matter of just a few seconds. That's the "standard," not whether it's just some item I don't care to possess myself.

I mean, why not allow people then to have machine guns, sawed-offs, grenades, rocket launchers, etc? Who got to "decide" that these were "illegal" to own in this country?
Click to expand...
There are things that kill far more people that you don’t want taken away from you. Though there are people out there that live without them. I don’t drink alcohol and don’t see the point of it. Are you going to let me decide to get rid of that? How about getting rid of automobiles? Let some Amish decide to get rid of cars and electricity?
 
Advertisement
Suhrthing said:
Right! I agree. They were legal forever, and then some 'non-originalist', pencil pushing geeks in congress decided law-abiding Americans could not longer be entrusted with them; and sht all over the CONUS, as per usual.
Click to expand...
Actually, it would be non-originalist to think any portion of the Constitution would cover any firearm technology that was not available at the time that it was written.

orig·i·nal·ism ə-ˈri-jə-nə-ˌli-zəm
-ˈrij-nə-

US law
: a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written
 
CaneinBroward said:
Actually, it would be non-originalist to think any portion of the Constitution would cover any firearm technology that was not available at the time that it was written.

orig·i·nal·ism ə-ˈri-jə-nə-ˌli-zəm
-ˈrij-nə-

US law
: a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written
Click to expand...
No, that's just stupid, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so ill-informed.

Would it blow your mind to find out that during our founders times, privateers commanded the equivalent of modern-day US Navy warships? As someone who has no idea what a militia is, of course it would.
 
Suhrthing said:
No, that's just stupid, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so ill-informed.

Would it blow your mind to find out that during our founders times, privateers commanded the equivalent of modern-day US Navy warships? As someone who has no idea what a militia is, of course it woul
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with today's weapon technology not being around in the late 1700's and therefore impossible to include them as being protected by the Constitution using the legal philosophy of "originalism"?

Go ahead and get as many 1700's cannons as you like. They could actually be included as protected by the Constitution as an originalist.
 
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
What does that have to do with today's weapon technology not being around in the late 1700's and therefore impossible to include them as being protected by the Constitution using the legal philosophy of "originalism"?

Go ahead and get as many 1700's cannons as you like. They could actually be included as protected by the Constitution as an originalist.
Click to expand...
Let me break it down for you really slow... "arms" in our founders' time, meant weapons of war, weapons armies and militias would use. The 'public meaning' of 'arms' during the time of the drafting of the CONUS, were arms militias and armies would you. Stop being ridiculous to prove a semantic point - because you're wrong there too.
 
Suhrthing said:
Let me break it down for you really slow... "arms" in our founders' time, meant weapons of war, weapons armies and militias would use. The 'public meaning' of 'arms' during the time of the drafting of the CONUS, were arms militias and armies would you. Stop being ridiculous to prove a semantic point - because you're wrong there too.
Click to expand...
I'll break it down for you even slower, Those weapons were not around then. Call it semantics all you want, but you are taking the "living Constitution" point of view in this one particular area. :cool:
 
CaneinBroward said:
I'll break it down for you even slower, Those weapons were not around then. Call it semantics all you want, but you are taking the "living Constitution" point of view in this one particular area. :cool:
Click to expand...
Arms were 100% around then, how do you think the revolutionary war was fought? Long rifles, artillery, warships... 100% existed. Try again.
 
Advertisement
Suhrthing said:
Arms were 100% around then, how do you think the revolutionary war was fought? Long rifles, artillery, warships... 100% existed. Try again.
Click to expand...
Who said arms weren't around back then? As an originalist, you should know you can have all the 1700's era long rifles, artillery, warships, bayonets, catapults, and slingshots that you want. That was the technology that was around at the time and the frame of reference that the founding fathers were working with.

Enough of these living Constitutionalist libs trying to interpret what the founding fathers really meant. Am I right? (y)
 
CaneinBroward said:
Who said arms weren't around back then? As an originalist, you should know you can have all the 1700's era long rifles, artillery, warships, bayonets, catapults, and slingshots that you want. That was the technology that was around at the time and the frame of reference that the founding fathers were working with.

Enough of these living Constitutionalist libs trying to interpret what the founding fathers really meant. Am I right? (y)
Click to expand...
This is the dumbest take I think ive ever heard regarding the constititution. That the constitution is chained to 'existing technology'? Is that what you believe originalism means? Lol. Are there really liberal scholars who believe this? If so who?
 
CaneinBroward said:
Who said arms weren't around back then? As an originalist, you should know you can have all the 1700's era long rifles, artillery, warships, bayonets, catapults, and slingshots that you want. That was the technology that was around at the time and the frame of reference that the founding fathers were working with.

Enough of these living Constitutionalist libs trying to interpret what the founding fathers really meant. Am I right? (y)
Click to expand...
So you are saying that they either thought no new technology would be developed for weapons or they forgot to say just the things now are what you can have? Odd that a group of people who just overthrown the most powerful empire and are writing things to prevent tyranny and allowing it to be overthrown would intend to handicap such a thing.
 
PanteraCanes said:
So you are saying that they either thought no new technology would be developed for weapons or they forgot to say just the things now are what you can have? Odd that a group of people who just overthrown the most powerful empire and are writing things to prevent tyranny and allowing it to be overthrown would intend to handicap such a thing.
Click to expand...
Yes. He's also saying:
  • Free speech only applies to literal spoken word, handwritten letters and the Gutenberg press - not email, chat, television, radio or telegraph.
  • The government can search your home without warrant if it uses modern steel or stick frame construction, can search your backpack if it has a zipper etc
  • The government can force you to quarter soldiers in the same cases as above
  • That voting via scanned ballot, mail-in ballot, or anything but paper and quills or calligraphy pens is not protected.
  • Abortion is only protected when using a coat-hanger
  • etc
It's really the dumbest take I've read on here in a long time.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top