Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The vote would be strictly symbolic, with the Senate, White House, and SCOTUS all being still R-controlled. But it would send a powerful message to women, minorities, and millennials for 2020. Vote D, and this could be your reward.
The AR-15 was the weapon used in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Aurora, San Bernardino, and so many others.
The AR-15 was banned in 1994 by President Clinton, but the law had a 10 year sunset clause. It regained legal status in 2004 under George W. Bush. Bush officially opposed rescinding the ban, but he did nothing to stop it.
With divided government, it's going to be tough to get anything done anyway. Why not go for a symbolic vote, to prepare the way for 2021? It would be a chance to sharpen the debate, and raise awareness.
For starters, what does "I'm write" mean?
Also where did you develop your "Lemay theory" related to large men vs. women and children fighting in wars, thus the reason for the adoption of the M-16 instead of other military rifles?
[As an FYI- AR-15's were not issued, rather full auto, select fire M-16's were]
As to your absurd topic, until more recently, hardly any criminal shootings, much less mass ones were perpetrated by semi-auto rifles, AR-15 or not.
Bill Clinton along with Congress banned not only the AR-15 from further sales (i.e. others grandfathered in) but other inaccurately called "assault rifles".
It never would have passed if the attempt was to do it permanently, so don't blame Clinton for that. Regardless it was for only 10 years to see if it made a difference.
The reason it was sunset after 10 years was because crime statistics showed no reduction in crime as a result, as most were not used in crime to begin with.
It was nothing more than a feel good attempt to do something, regardless of it's illogic or ineffectiveness.
As many are too young or ignorant to remember, the anti-2nd Amendment gun grabbers have historically focused on handguns, and left rifles/shotguns alone. The reason for this was simple, in that handguns are responsible for many more criminal shootings. Groups that were once called Handgun Control Inc. changed their names because they didn't want their true intentions telegraphed any longer. So they came up with friendlier or non descript names to help mask their gun grabbing agenda. Whether it be Brady or Everytown, rest assured they want to take away all guns in our society, including law abiding citizens.
They know it is a losing battle, both from a political standpoint, and from a Constitutional one.
Which brings me to my last correction. You say the scotus is (R) controlled, yet in theory according to many of your ilk, their is no (D) or (R) justices. They are suppose to use their professional and judicial philosophy to determine the constitutionality of laws, not make them up from the judicial branch. This of course flies in the face of activist liberal justices who find new meaning in the Constitution to do what they think is best for society. Needless to say that is not the way our system works, as it must come from the Legislature, not the Judiciary.
So even if your hope/dream were to come to pass with Congress and the Executive passing such a law, it would not pass muster. So unless the 2nd Amendment is abolished through the valid methods, any non-activist court would strike it down as unconstitutional.
Should the new D-controlled US House vote to ban the AR-15 assault-style weapon?
Absolutely NOT, they should address the root causes of the problems, not the weapon, the weapon is not the problem. Banning any weapon will not stop criminals from getting them, and banning them on the basis of preventing crazed individuals from obtaining them, they'll still get them or use other means of doing harm to others. If you're a gun owner and you don't like the AR-15 style or any semi-auto weapons, don't buy them.
...Which brings me to my last correction. You say the scotus is (R) controlled, yet in theory according to many of your ilk, their is no (D) or (R) justices. They are suppose to use their professional and judicial philosophy to determine the constitutionality of laws, not make them up from the judicial branch. This of course flies in the face of activist liberal justices who find new meaning in the Constitution to do what they think is best for society. Needless to say that is not the way our system works, as it must come from the Legislature, not the Judiciary.
`
In theory you are of course right, but in practice the Supreme Court is now a partisan body. How else do you explain all the 5-4 rulings, since all nine justices are ruling based on the same US Constitution?
Just a quick note: women and minorities are gun owners, too, and are growing in numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by exm
Ok, ban the AR-15. Then crazies will use another weapon. Let's ban that also. Rinse and repeat. Liberals want to open the floodgates of banning ALL weapons so no thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user491
No, it’s a terrible idea to ban it. A ban will not do anything to stop mass murders. A semi auto handgun with a standard magazine can hold 18 rounds (17+1 in the chamber) and can be reloaded in seconds, so even if you got rid of semi auto rifles it still wouldn’t stop people who are bent on committing mass shootings.
Another useless ban is a magazine limit, which some states have. It does nothing to reduce gun violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
No, don't be stupid. The AR-15 is no more the cause of our problems than the semi-auto pistol or automobiles. The issue is that we, as a society are both becoming more stupid (see declining IQ) and place less value on human life. Combine that with a society that does not hold individuals responsible for their actions and you have a mess. The tool doesn't matter-the person does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
No. If you dont want one, dont buy one.
ALL of the above
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
I actually showed the falsity of this in another thread, which I think unfortunately got deleted, perhaps due to trolling by pro-gun posters.
A gun does actually jump up and pull its own trigger. Not literally, of course, but that is in effect what can happen. This is due to the combination of gun availability and the 'honor culture.' The process and outcome is exactly as if the gun jumped up and pulled its own trigger. This has been shown through scientific research at the University of Washington.
WOW!
People wonder how others can question scientific research.
In theory you are of course right, but in practice the Supreme Court is now a partisan body. How else do you explain all the 5-4 rulings, since all nine justices are ruling based on the same US Constitution?
In some ways I could not agree more.
Certain cases I assume are going to be a slam dunk with at least a 7-2 ruling, yet it comes down to 5-4 far too often. Needless to say when I see a 7-2 or 9-0 I feel more confident that they came to the right conclusion.
That is of course if they are not ideologically aligned, otherwise it would be a forgone conclusion assuming it was more personal/political, rather than constitutional jurisprudence.
That said, and this of course will come across as biased, when I hear both Ginsburg & Breyer say they use other things such as the UN and other foreign law/s to decide cases of American constitutionality, my head wants to explode.
Breyer is a really smart/sharp jurist, but can you imagine if during Clinton considering nominating him, he said such things?
Clinton would have picked someone else. He didn't have a choice nominating Ginsburg, because his feminist wife insisted he nominate her.
I lean right politically, so with that said one might think I am predisposed to prefer majority rulings of not necessarily conservatives throughout the history of the scotus, but original intent and/or textualists if you will.
I developed that philosophy when I was more moderate socially, and even had some fairly liberal viewpoints.
The reason I came to the conclusion that justices with more conservative judicial philosophies tended to be correct, is having read and studied the Federalist Papers.
Anyone wanting to educate themselves on our Constitution would be wise to read it, and make up their own minds about present day rulings.
That helped me to better understand the thinking and reasoning of the time when our governing document was drafted and eventually ratified. I didn't necessarily agree with everything on a personal level, but was also wise enough to know those who crafted it were wiser than I.
Don't you just love the level of knowledge and expertise among people who try to write about guns?
Oh my. Dontcha just swoon with admiration . The levels of ignorance with the ban happy crowd are just mind boggling. Often plumb hilarious or would be if they weren't actually getting more ignorant people on board with their misinformation and out right falsehoods.
When these types get to yammering about guns the capabilities of any given firearm get so inflated as to be comical. With rifles like the AR accessories like pistol grips, muzzle brakes, optics, and such make the rifle a "never miss" device. Introduce ammunition and it is turned into phase plasma reactive armor defeating total "cop killer" blaster rounds. In its simplest configuration the rifle is capable of "mowing down hundreds of people". Some of the stuff these people say is just flat ludicrous and when called on it they just blow it off and say that real knowledge is not needed to understand the "gun problem."
Certain cases I assume are going to be a slam dunk with at least a 7-2 ruling, yet it comes down to 5-4 far too often. Needless to say when I see a 7-2 or 9-0 I feel more confident that they came to the right conclusion.
That is of course if they are not ideologically aligned, otherwise it would be a forgone conclusion assuming it was more personal/political, rather than constitutional jurisprudence.
That said, and this of course will come across as biased, when I hear both Ginsburg & Breyer say they use other things such as the UN and other foreign law/s to decide cases of American constitutionality, my head wants to explode.
Breyer is a really smart/sharp jurist, but can you imagine if during Clinton considering nominating him, he said such things?
Clinton would have picked someone else. He didn't have a choice nominating Ginsburg, because his feminist wife insisted he nominate her.
I lean right politically, so with that said one might think I am predisposed to prefer majority rulings of not necessarily conservatives throughout the history of the scotus, but original intent and/or textualists if you will.
I developed that philosophy when I was more moderate socially, and even had some fairly liberal viewpoints. The reason I came to the conclusion that justices with more conservative judicial philosophies tended to be correct, is having read and studied the Federalist Papers.
Anyone wanting to educate themselves on our Constitution would be wise to read it, and make up their own minds about present day rulings.
That helped me to better understand the thinking and reasoning of the time when our governing document was drafted and eventually ratified. I didn't necessarily agree with everything on a personal level, but was also wise enough to know those who crafted it were wiser than I.
`
That about sums it up! It's the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. The reason why there should be no activist justices sitting on the bench. EVER. Or elect anyone who vows to: "fundamentally change America".
Once you're willing to relinquish one of your civil liberties the others won't be too far behind.
I could not rep you again, but this thought crossed my mind a few days ago. I'm going with semi-clever troll. Or maybe even clever, since I totally bought into it at first.
The facts I posted in post #1 are all 100% historically accurate and correct. Gen. Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay did in fact introduce the AR-15 to the US military. He also later ran as VP running mate with racist segregationist George Wallace. Anyone with access to Google can confirm it. It is not trolling; it is verifiable history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
