Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban....

[Mr. Reactionary]

Are there any real arguments as to how an AR-15 is more dangerous than the guns that people would use instead if it were banned?

Apparently the safety features that the big government crowd usually demands of other things make the AR-15 too safe to operate. I mean look at the safety features they generally oppose with "assault weapons":

Pistol Grips which allow for easier gun control while shooting, and also enable a shooter to activate the safety if the gun misfires without having to awkwardly shift your hands around.

Barrel Shrouds which are just a piece of metal fitted over the barrel so you don't accidentally burn your hand.

Flash Hiders which reduce the direct light glare from the barrel that can damage eyes.

Folding stocks which help smaller shooters, such as women, more easily carry and operate the gun to their comfort level instead of relying on a 1 size fits all setting designed for men.

Not to mention the fact that if you even mention silencers as a way to reduce the proven damage to shooters' long-term hearing they scream they assume you're a criminal.

It's as if instead of trying to make cigarettes less unhealthy, they ban filters and require them to have twice as much tar as part of some vindictive scheme to hurt the "stupit rednex" for liking something different than them. Like how its OK to require nail salon workers in New York to pay for a 250 hour class which includes written exams (for safety!), but if you even suggest that abortion clinics draft and post infection prevention guidelines that's evil and unnecessary because something something old white males muh body.

[Joe Republic]

Can somebody summarize the arguments given thus far against banning (at the very least) the AR-15?  The only coherent (yet laughably invalid) argument I've seen is "bbut gubmint tranny!!"  Well okay, somewhat coherent.

I think the best argument is that we don't need an argument.

Convincing!

You are proposing that the government impose a limitation on a fundamental constitutional right. The burden of justifying this is on the government. It is an exceptional burden to overcome.

I'm proposing changing the constitution to rectify a problem with the earlier draft.  Just like the 21st Amendment did to the 18th.

But realistically, I guess you should be able to keep whatever handguns you need to help your rational/irrational fear for your personal safety go away.  But nobody should have an AR-15, period.  This is pure and simple common sense, and the entire world and more than half of this country is telling you that, regardless of whether you choose to listen.*

(* That should sound familiar to any Donald Trump supporters reading this!)

You know, I hope Clinton wins and appoints a couple of liberal justices on the Supreme Court that overturn Heller.

If you want to be buried with all eighteen guns after dying in whatever delusional Scarface-type fantasy you have in mind, I guess I can't stop you.  I don't personally see the appeal, but I don't have anything I feel I need to prove. 

[MK]

Can somebody summarize the arguments given thus far against banning (at the very least) the AR-15?  The only coherent (yet laughably invalid) argument I've seen is "bbut gubmint tranny!!"  Well okay, somewhat coherent.

I think the best argument is that we don't need an argument.

Convincing!

You are proposing that the government impose a limitation on a fundamental constitutional right. The burden of justifying this is on the government. It is an exceptional burden to overcome.

I'm proposing changing the constitution to rectify a problem with the earlier draft.  Just like the 21st Amendment did to the 18th.

But realistically, I guess you should be able to keep whatever handguns you need to help your rational/irrational fear for your personal safety go away.  But nobody should have an AR-15, period.  This is pure and simple common sense, and the entire world and more than half of this country is telling you that, regardless of whether you choose to listen.*

(* That should sound familiar to any Donald Trump supporters reading this!)

You know, I hope Clinton wins and appoints a couple of liberal justices on the Supreme Court that overturn Heller.

If you want to be buried with all eighteen guns after dying in whatever delusional Scarface-type fantasy you have in mind, I guess I can't stop you.  I don't personally see the appeal, but I don't have anything I feel I need to prove. 

Because why argue with someone that doesn't understand anything about the guns you are trying to argue against.

The AR-15 is basically like any other rife think the mini-14 which if you saw wouldn't think "scary".  Its semi-auto ,but so are hand guns.  Its not anymore faster ,nor is it some fully automatic rife capable of shooting hundreds of rounds in second.  Its not on par with any mil-spec M4 or M16 its a very watered down rife IMO.   

Here is a 223. Mini-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#/media/File:Mini14GB.jpg  Most wouldn't think "scary assault rife"

Some people in this country may not personally see the appeal of men having sex with other men, but should those people have final say?     I don't understand why people like you on the left are fighting the against obvious here.   Islamic terror caused this not some gun because as I remembered during high school watching two airliners crash into the twin towers.  Its not about an object. 

But of course the left hates America anyway and could careless about real issues and would rather infringe upon others rights.

[Joe Republic]

I'll wait for somebody else to respond to me, thanks.  Your posts are... how to put this politely... difficult to read.

[dead0man]

Yeah, one clearly needs to be a genius to figure that out

Let me try Joe's monosyllabic language.

AR15 same as other rifles
only look scary to impress friends
function same
fire...BAAAAAAAAD!!!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Best defense of the AR-15 I've read: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11975850/ar-15-owner-orlando

The author doesn't seem to oppose all gun control though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Summary of article's points:

-Military firearms like the AR-15 are popular for use amongst civilians even for hunting because they tend to be more high quality and are less prone to jam and things like that.
-The AR-15 is very popular because it's extremely customizable.
-Mass shooters tend to use it not because it's necessarily better for shootings  than any ordinary rifle but because its popularity for the above two reasons makes it more common and a gun people are more familiar with.

Why actual gun nuts can't simply explain those things and instead going on their deranged rants is curious though.

[dead0man]

Sure, those work too.  But so do:
we don't need a reason
it's the same as other rifles gun control nuts don't want to ban
not that many people are murdered by rifles
even fewer are murdered by "assault weapons"
even fewer are murdered with an AR15
even fewer are murdered with a legal AR15
the last AWB was stupid and pointless (other than hurting the gun control nut side in the long run) why bring it back?
etc, etc


There are a LOT of good reasons to "defend" the AR15.

[Joe Republic]

Yeah, one clearly needs to be a genius to figure that out

Let me try Joe's monosyllabic language.

AR15 same as other rifles
only look scary to impress friends
function same
fire...BAAAAAAAAD!!!

  I needed somebody to translate Moronic into English, not into Imbecilic, but it's great to see you're able to do so.

[Joe Republic]

Sure, those work too.  But so do:
we don't need a reason
it's the same as other rifles gun control nuts don't want to ban
not that many people are murdered by rifles
even fewer are murdered by "assault weapons"
even fewer are murdered with an AR15
even fewer are murdered with a legal AR15
the last AWB was stupid and pointless (other than hurting the gun control nut side in the long run) why bring it back?
etc, etc


There are a LOT of good reasons to "defend" the AR15.

So try listing some, then.

[Kingpoleon]

Best defense of the AR-15 I've read: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11975850/ar-15-owner-orlando

The author doesn't seem to oppose all gun control though.

Joe, when BRTD attacks you from the right, you should probably stand down.

[Joe Republic]

Or to put it another way, when somebody closer to my side of the argument is having to research your side's arguments for you, because those you have presented are too weak to stand on their own, then you should probably stand down.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A few points:

1. The interpretation of the Second Amendment and the English common law preceding it that blackraisin is advancing strikes me as, broadly, the 'correct' one. This doesn't, however, automatically mean that advocating a new constitutional amendment to repeal or set coherent limits on the Second would be legally unacceptable or morally wrong, because
2. While a purely consequentialist view of law (or of anything, for that matter) is obviously morally unacceptable (this is one of my many problems with the 'law-and-economics' fad in legal studies), so is a completely consequence-neutral one. Not only should rights imply corollary duties, both rights and duties should imply some sort of standards of efficacy in promoting the common good and creating a just society.
3. Scaremongering about the AR-15 specifically is foolish.

Even though I have very un-libertarian Issues stances I do actually have a conceptually anti-authoritarian streak and I sympathize with the pro-gun position more than probably most leftists, either on this site or elsewhere, do, but at the same time the current American cultural and legal attitude towards guns (an attitude that is, yes, constitutionally enshrined), compared to the attitude almost literally everywhere else in the developed world, is getting ridiculous. (This isn't supposed to be a boilerplate 'muh Europe' argument; if it strikes everyone as one then I'll retract it, but the rest of what I'm saying stands.)

[RINO Tom]

Great instead of mass shootings every year we will hear about stand-offs with American families every day.

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

I say non-military because there's a distinction - soldiers have been trained in how to use these weapons extensively. Your average backwoods fat hick hasn't.

How would you react if a pro-gun control conservative like Brown Line said "soldiers have been trained to use them, so they're fine, but your average inner-city poor Black guy hasn't."?

[Green Line]

Great instead of mass shootings every year we will hear about stand-offs with American families every day.

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

I say non-military because there's a distinction - soldiers have been trained in how to use these weapons extensively. Your average backwoods fat hick hasn't.

How would you react if a pro-gun control conservative like Brown Line said "soldiers have been trained to use them, so they're fine, but your average inner-city poor Black guy hasn't."?

He would probably say "sounds reasonable".

[RINO Tom]

Great instead of mass shootings every year we will hear about stand-offs with American families every day.

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

I say non-military because there's a distinction - soldiers have been trained in how to use these weapons extensively. Your average backwoods fat hick hasn't.

How would you react if a pro-gun control conservative like Brown Line said "soldiers have been trained to use them, so they're fine, but your average inner-city poor Black guy hasn't."?

He would probably say "sounds reasonable".

My point is both are inexplicably rude and offensive ways to refer to entire groups of people, and it's asinine to only care when certain groups are degraded.

[MK]

People like Joe republic and other leftists like to talk about banning "assault weapons", but continue to assault us with their lack of firearm knowledge.  Maybe we should impose a ban on high capacity mouths and low capacity brains.   

[Joe Republic]

You ought to give the proper credit to whichever talk radio host or elderly Facebook friend told you that one.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sure, those work too.  But so do:
we don't need a reason
it's the same as other rifles gun control nuts don't want to ban
not that many people are murdered by rifles
even fewer are murdered by "assault weapons"
even fewer are murdered with an AR15
even fewer are murdered with a legal AR15
the last AWB was stupid and pointless (other than hurting the gun control nut side in the long run) why bring it back?
etc, etc


There are a LOT of good reasons to "defend" the AR15.

and yet all we're hearing is "DEFEND MUH FREEDOMS AGAINST GUBMINT TYRANNY!"  Because honestly that argument is so inane and stupid and basically only believed by Alex Jones-type loonies it makes me want to dismiss the entire side on those grounds alone (and come on dude, you work for the federal government, I'd figure YOU of all people would also find it absurd and insane.)

And the article (printed in an obviously not pro-gun website of course) doesn't entirely exonerate everything about an AR-15, for example the author notes that it's popular for being very customizable. But hunting is typically done in a manner similar to sniping and at a distance, and hunting rifles don't have a fast fire or reload rate. Now with such a gun you could do some damage in a crowded area yes, but not as much as one specifically designed for close quarters shooting. So at the very least if the AR-15 can be easily customized to be used in close quarters and for ease of reloading, then there are some accessories for it that serve no valid purpose and should not be sold.

[Mr. Reactionary]

And the article (printed in an obviously not pro-gun website of course) doesn't entirely exonerate everything about an AR-15, for example the author notes that it's popular for being very customizable. But hunting is typically done in a manner similar to sniping and at a distance, and hunting rifles don't have a fast fire or reload rate. Now with such a gun you could do some damage in a crowded area yes, but not as much as one specifically designed for close quarters shooting. So at the very least if the AR-15 can be easily customized to be used in close quarters and for ease of reloading, then there are some accessories for it that serve no valid purpose and should not be sold.

Quick, efficient loading isn't a valid purpose?

[dead0man]

and yet all we're hearing is "DEFEND MUH FREEDOMS AGAINST GUBMINT TYRANNY!"  Because honestly that argument is so inane and stupid and basically only believed by Alex Jones-type loonies it makes me want to dismiss the entire side on those grounds alone (and come on dude, you work for the federal government, I'd figure YOU of all people would also find it absurd and insane.)

It's not quite as stupid as the "all guns should be banned" people on the other side.  It's not an argument I ever use, but there is SOME merit to it.  I don't like it because it's never going to happen.  The DoD is not going to start killing Americans, since, you know, the DoD is made up almost entirely of Americans...and generally the same kind of Americans that love their guns.  Pvt Sixpack isn't going to shoot his dad because some stupid lefties passed a law.

But if they did, I'd rather have friends with AR15s than not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you've repeatedly stated that you think things you don't like or don't understand a use for should be banned.  This isn't news.  I think there should be reasons to ban things, really really good reasons.

Bayonet lugs.  Banned in AWB 1:the dumbening.  Why?  Nobody knows.  A bayonet has never been used in a crime the US (I'm not really saying never here, I'm sure one has been used at some point, but obviously not a huge component of crime).  .50cal rifles, banned in California.  Why?  They have never been used in a crime in the state.  It's all so stupid, it makes me want to dismiss the entire side on those grounds alone.

[Hermit For Peace]

Well here's something that even I can understand. So this is what is behind such a massive push for gun ownership and gun ownership "rights" and for not allowing gun control measures to pass Congress:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/opinions/gun-control-donohue/index.html


So it all comes down to $$$. That's what it looks like to me. Such a shame.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well here's something that even I can understand. So this is what is behind such a massive push for gun ownership and gun ownership "rights" and for not allowing gun control measures to pass Congress:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/opinions/gun-control-donohue/index.html


So it all comes down to $$$. That's what it looks like to me. Such a shame.

So the first 200 years was a lie?

[politicallefty]

I'm fairly moderate on abortion and do not believe in fetal personhood or imposing undue burdens on women seeking abortion. Thanks for playing though. I understand that stereotyping is easier than thinking.

I'll admit it was a misfire with you and I will respectfully apologize, as I'd prefer this debate stick with the main issues at hand. I'd prefer our respective sides don't talk over each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From how you've characterized yourself, you sound far more Libertarian than Constitution Party. Based on current jurisprudence, the Supreme Court established the right to consensual sex regardless of sex in 2003. So long as you believe in individual liberty, I cannot imagine a bigger violation of said liberty than to deny one's right to consensual sex (regardless of type or gender). It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court established an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"Arms" under the 2nd Amendment does have some definitional limits. For starters, they must be capable of being carried by a single infantryman. I know colloquially "arms" now means "weapons" generally, but the definition of "arms" contemporaneous with the passage of our constitution did have the former distinction. It's why the Articles of Confederation required each State to stockpile both arms (individual weapons) and field pieces (crew served weapons), instead of just saying arms to mean both. That would clearly exclude nukes and anthrax and missiles and tanks and all of the other large military weapons that anti-gunners think they are clever invoking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want to say I'm glad it's taken me this long to respond to your post. I maintain my strong disagreement, but I can understand your point of view. I do not agree with you that the Second Amendment contains an absolute right. Furthermore, I do not agree that it has an individual right. If you need to understand my position, read Justice Stevens' dissent in DC v. Heller. Even accepting an individual right to bear arms, Justice Scalia's majority opinion did not declare it to be an absolute right without limits.

And I know you've posting in this topic with various memes, but ultimately, First Amendment absolutism is very different from Second Amendment absolutism. (That's not to mention your post a Rachel Maddow quote. I watch her show every day. She has fired the weapons we're talking about. She knows the weapons we're talking about and the ease by which they may be fired by even a child.)

I want to conclude this post in a positive manner and I'll try. The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and regardless of its interpretation, I must accept that. However, even when an individual right has been established, there are always some limitations. No Constitutional right is without limit. But your side doesn't even want to discuss the issues at all.

This may surprise you, but I'd be willing to relent on another assault weapons ban. Based on what I've read recently, it would probably accomplish little. That does not mean I will give up on the gun issue and that I think guns are not the issue. I would prefer our two sides came together. I know many responsible gun owners and I do not fear them. Your side does not recognize how many people die from guns everyday, not including mass shootings. That's not an accident; it is from guns. Responsible gun owners are the not the problem. The problem is that the right extends to those that should not have the right. When you place the burden on the government in a matter like this, there will be disastrous results. Your side can't even accept relatively minor restrictions to adapt to the 21st century.

You know what, I highly doubt you yourself is going to commit mass murder. Those of us looking for some restrictions are not looking at you. Ironically, most people armed to the teeth aren't ever actually going to use their weapons. I'm afraid of the lone wolf, those that have actually committed mass murder. I recognize that we're not going to stop every potential mass shooting. That doesn't mean I don't want to prevent them as much as possible or mitigate the loss of life. If you can't accept that part of our argument, then I'll consider this debate ended here. I can accept that explicit gun bans do little (provided automatic weapons are still very much illegal). If I can accept that, why can your side not accept universal background checks to keep weapons out of illegal hands. I would also add a limit on high-capacity magazines as well. Establishing a 10-round limit on magazines would save lives in mass shootings. If you already have a mass-shooter, I would rather have legislation and restrictions in place to mitigate the casualty rate.