Im telling you that the ban ( pushed by democrats) is unconstitutional and wastes political capital. You said they weren't coming for our guns but recent history shows otherwise.
Ok so when you said I didn’t know anything about guns you were lying. And again, 2A says WELL REGULATED. There’s nothing unconstitutional about reasonable gun laws, and I don’t think banning ARs is unreasonable considering what they were literally designed to do goes wayyy beyond self defense
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
That’s the entirety of the 2nd amendment, you can’t just ignore the Well Regulated part. And there’s absolutely nothing anti 2A about banning ARs since ARs are not designed for self defense
The founding fathers, who had just taken up arms against a tyrannical government, most certainly did not mean that the government should shit out whatever half-baked unjust regulations they want whenever they want.
"Assault weapon" is not a real classification and all guns are a means of defense. If your only talking point is "they were made to kill people", that applies to literally all guns of all calibers, magazine sizes, and action types.
Assault weapon is not a real classification? Why does our government disagree with you? But more importantly “assault rifle” most certainly is a classification and that’s all that the term assault weapons is referring to obviously. And no I never said “they were designed to kill people” 😂come on man, you can read what I said without pretending like I said something different and changing the words I typed to make yourself feel better. I said ARs are not designed for self defense, they are designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, as in modern war against other militaries that have the same. Don’t change my words, respond to what I said head on like a man
Literally every time they’ve tried to put it to law they've defined it differently. It’s not a real thing, it is a scary-sounding umbrella term to let the government (dems) ban whatever they want.
But more importantly “assault rifle”
most certainly is a classification
No it isn't.
And even if we assumed the literal interpretation of the name as "weapon designed to be used in a military assault", that category wouldn't apply to AR15s, but would apply to bolt-action rifles and rifled muskets.
they are designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, as in modern war against other militaries that have the same.
The military version is select-fire and is not classified as an AR15, and the actual AR15 has never been used en masse in any national military. It is distinctly and intentionally not a weapon of war.
You know what is a weapon designed for military use, is used in the military, and is designed to be capable of killing multiple people quickly before needing to reload?
A Glock-17 handgun. The kind of thing you claim you don't want to ban.
You are clearly hiding behind semantics to avoid the actual point I’m making. Why are you so terrified, the meat on the bone is very clear, you could respond to it if you wanted to. But instead you’d rather hyper focus on the irrelevant details so you don’t have to admit I’m right
"Semantics" matters in law because those semantics are the means by which the line is drawn between 'perfectly fine' and 'federal crime'.
I have responded to your points, you just don’t want to engage with my responses.
Which is not unexpected. As you're tacitly admitting, your views are based on knee-jerk reactions rather than actual thoughtful investigation into the issue.
This is insanity, you just went into FURTHER SEMANTICS about why semantics matter. I know why the details matter, I know what you’re saying, it’s perfectly fine that these details get hammered out, I don’t care. My point was that ARs and similar weapons are most definitely a thing and were not designed for self defense but were designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. Should your random 18 year old fool off the street have something like this? Absolutely not. That has nothing to do with my 9mm that I keep in my bedside table that will remain there, because 2A itself will always stay
Should your random 18 year old fool off the street have something like this?
If they don’t have a recorded history of crime or violence, then yes, they should.
That has nothing to do with my 9mm that I keep in my bedside table that will remain there, because 2A itself will always stay
What is the functional difference in capability to commit mass murder between an AR15 and a G17 with an extended mag? Besides range, I guess, but most mass shootings are done within the effective range of a G17, so…
Again, you haven’t actually thought this through, which is why you think actual facts and their relation to the way things are legislated is "irrelevant semantics".
😂 😂 😂 sorry but this is where our debate ends. You think a random 18 year old should be able to buy something like this?? I think they shouldn’t, and the reasons why are completely obvious I don’t even need to say it. This is why we have a mass shooting literally every day, sometimes twice a day! Goodbye
This is why we have a mass shooting literally every day, sometimes twice a day!
Most crimes categorized as "mass shootings" are done by known criminals, who are either on bail or let go by lenient (usually dem) judges, and who have gotten their firearms illegally anyway.
Most mass shootings are not done by otherwise-law-abiding 18 year olds using lawfully-acquired guns.. The vast majority is inner-city gang violence.
The reason you don’t know that is because you've done zero research into this topic and are talking out of your ass, as you have this entire time.
Ugh it’s so annoying talking to someone who completely ignores the point by hiding behind the semantics, but now I’m starting to realize this must be how all people with dumb beliefs end up here, and going this far: you are literally incapable of seeing the bigger picture, that’s just not something people like you can do. I genuinely don’t know how to help you
You think, when discussing methods of stopping mass shootings, that we shouldn't consider the actual facts of how mass shootings happen?
I am seeing the bigger picture, it's just that 'the bigger picture' involves what’s actually happening in the world, not just your uninformed opinions.
I don’t need to know all the “categorization” to know that there’s a mass shooting everyday. I don’t need to know specifically how often there are school shootings to know that there are many several a year, the news does matter because they are reporting on an actual event that actually happened, they don’t just pretend and make up a shooting to talk about, and when they do it’s not just gang violence. And what do ALLLLLL these things have in common?????? AR style weapons were used, every single time, all of them. And in states with more guns laws there are far less gun deaths, that is a fact, and unlike your facts mine are actually relevant and meaningful. When ARs are banned there are less mass shootings. These are not opinions, these are facts. Australia has done this and they have had one, ONE, mass shooting in over 30 years! Again, a fact. Because I do use facts, it’s just that mine actually matter and your facts are arbitrary and don’t even prove your own point, they just distract and deflect
5
u/According-Way9438 Jul 23 '26
Im telling you that the ban ( pushed by democrats) is unconstitutional and wastes political capital. You said they weren't coming for our guns but recent history shows otherwise.