"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)

- So I win this point. This was originally a rebuttal to my point about gun laws and how they reduce crime. I read through your source, and it says guns are bought where gun control is lesser. In other words, if the whole nation had strict gun laws, this trade would stop and it would be harder to get a gun in Chicago. And this really isn't a rebuttal. No matter how strict gun laws are, it will be near impossible to stop illegal guns from coming in. But, most illegal guns come from states with weak gun laws, like Indiana. Your own source says this. Obviously, if Indiana passed stronger gun laws, then this trade would go down, and Chicago would have less gun crime. That isn't how this works. If you put up gun control in Indiana people are going to smuggle guns in from other states, if the whole nation gets gun control smugglers will get them in from out of the country. It's the same with drugs, they are illegal in all states, so smugglers smuggle them in from out of the country. (and just a tip, don't say you won a point. That's not for you to decide.) - I saw no sources to back up anything. I definitely looked at your sources. You notice that in my rebuttal, where I specially mention I read your sources. Maybe you didn't read my argument. Also, you are supposed to make the argument. Your source shows where you get the data, or where you get the argument, from. You can't just say, "This is my argument -link to another video by someone else." So as far as I'm concerned, I win this point too, as you are unable to prove how this comma proves anything. And, you didn't respond to my question. What is the point of the, "Well regulated militia" part then? A.) the constitution is my source, the very first words were "we the people" not "we the states" or "we the militia" or "we the government" B.)like I said in the comments, there are too many sources to link them, so I post the video because it contains all of the links. C.)you didn't disprove my statement about the comma. D.)the point of the well-regulated militia part is to establish that arms are to be used in a well-regulated militia, but the comma is there to separate that from "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." what other reason is there for the comma? I could send you a source telling you the meaning of a comma, but you should already know a comma is to separate two parts of a sentence. Please listen to this point. Passing more gun laws won't violate any interpretation of the second amendment. You can still buy guns. Only bad people can't buy guns. Law abiding citizens can still bear arms. My proof of this is the States. States with more gun control have fewer murders. The link is in earlier argument. gun laws do affect law abiding citizens when you say what guns they can and cannot own, just because that's the gun a criminal owned. Non-restrictive gun laws aren't the issue, it's banning certain guns. I'd agree that fully-automatic weapons should not be in civilians hands, but a semi-automatic self-defense, hunting, and sporting gun should not be illegal.(the AR-15) "As I said earlier, just because M.r Crowder is biased doesn't mean the facts he provides are false." - No, I'm saying this because, in his article, he has no sources. So why should I believe what he says? If you had the capacity to look on the page a little, you would have found the sources. - The only gun you actually showed was the Girandoni Air Rifle, in service in Europe. How do you know the founding fathers knew about it? The constitution was written in 1787. How do you know that at that time, the founding fathers knew about that technology? Even if they did, take into account its' effectiveness and the time the second amendment was written. First, the time. This was at a time when there were not gangs and tons of gun crime. This was when there was no strong US army, and the founding fathers knew that the people would need to be armed to protect the nation. Plus, this gun can't of been in many hands, so the fathers probably didn't care about it. And again, this gun was horribly ineffective, as your own source points out. Like it needs 1500 pumps just to shoot a few rounds at a very low velocity. This is the kind of repeating gun that existed. Not the modern rifles we have today. So my point still stands. As technology improves, laws need to catch up. This is why I provided the example of drones to back up my claim. A.) I showed at least 3 more weapons that were high-capacity firearms. B.)http://www.redstate.com... They knew very well that the Giradoni rifle existed, and if I remember correctly, George Washinton tried to order multi-shot rifles, but they were too expensive. I have no source to back up this claim presently, so feel free to ignore that part. C.)you provided the example that drones with weaponry would require renewing of laws, and I agree, but drones with weaponry are military only already, meanwhile these firearms are perfectly safe for civilian use. They even fire the same ammunition as most hunting rifles and are commonly used for hunting. D.) you declared you won a point again. that's not your decision. Hell, president Madison protected a citizen ship's right to have cannons on it, in a time when cannons served purely a military purpose." - Yes, I checked your source, and it said Madison allowed the ship to have cannons FOR a military purpose: attacking enemy shipping. We are not in a war. We don't need private ships with missles, we have a navy for that. This is a reoccurring theme for this debate. We don't need private citizens to be armed. We have others to protect them. We have the strongest military in the world, so the people don't need to be armed in the way the founding fathers intended. the point of that clearly flew right over your head. Madison let a civilian ship bear almost exclusively military arms was the point. No, I don't think civilians need military-grade firearms, but an AR-15 is a civilian grade weapon. http://www.ar15goa.com... "AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger." - My point is that you can still bear arms, regardless of whether guns are banned. The second amendment mentions "Arms". Not firearms, but arms. If you want to play semantics, I can too. Even with your interpretation, it only gives the right to bear arms. So if you restrict guns, which doesn't even violate the second amendment, people can still bear arms. Just not firearms. "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I don't understand how you can make that statement when the second amendment clearly disagrees. Banning guns would be a move made in SEVERE disregard of the second amendment. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org... "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The court said that banning the possession of handguns is an infringement of the Second Amendment. The functionality of a handgun and an AR-15 Is essentially identical. AR-15s just "look scary" I'm getting low on characters how about Venezuela? They banned most firearms and have a much higher gun murder rate than the U.S. Or Honduras, which has stricter gun regulations and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world? Or Brazil? Or Swaziland? Or Guatemala, Jamaica, El Salvador, or Colombia? Because those countries follow strict gun laws, and have higher murder rates than the U.S. Our murder rate is much lower than theirs actually, it's our suicide rate that makes our gun death rate as high as it is. If we were basing it off of just gun murder, America would be far lower on this list. We don't need gun control, we need therapy, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org... I cannot express how irritating it is that you keep claiming you've won points. surprise, surprise, states with more knives have more knife related deaths, places with more cars tend to have more pollution, places with more criminals tend to have more crime. How about having people defend themselves from the crime that happens? You can require safety measures, but you can't stop an idiot from being an idiot with them. how about more gun safety classes? That seems like a less expensive and more effective thing, to teach idiots what to do and what not to do with firearms, and not blame the gun if the idiot does something stupid with their firearm, instead of punishing law abiding citizens for it. "While you are more likely to be shot in the occurrence of a shooting,you are also far less likely to be involved in a shooting or violent crime if you carry. A study found that you are far likely to be engaged by someone with criminal intent if you have a firearm on you." - This is actually a bad thing. More criminals carry guns because more people carry guns. So stop concealed carry. so you're saying it's a bad thing that people who carry firearms are much less likely to be involved in crime? I don't see your point. You're saying we need to stop concealed carry because it stops crime. As I said, a study showed that even an armed criminal is much less likely to engage with someone who they believe has a weapon on them. If more people carry, criminals will fear them more. https://www.gunowners.org... In conclusion, my rights then are no different than my rights now, no matter the tech. My Right to own firearms, especially civilian grade firearms, is not to be infringed, and the constitution defends that right. I have another point I'll put in the comme