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

"You very successfully rebutted my first point, but my point still stands, while it will be harder, the violence will not be stopped and the illegal gun smuggling will not stop. I understand your point is that it will lessen, and maybe that's true, but it will also take away my rights and freedoms so that you can feel safer, and I'd rather not test and see where it goes." - Alright. Here is the thing. It is fine for you to own a gun. I don't care if you do. But if you make firearms easy to buy, then bad people will get them easily. I assume we can agree on that. So in order to protect everyone, we will need to make it harder for us to buy guns. Yes, illegal guns will still be here, but the number will go down. If you have nothing to hide, then the only thing preventing you from buying a gun would be classes and restrictions. You can still buy a gun, it will just take longer. But those few hours or minutes can save lives. "This is because it was sourceless. RULING: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." - This source doesn't address my point about how you can't prove the comma gives the right to own firearms to all. "never said, "What's the point of the comma?" I said, "What's the point of the first clause then?" If we interpret it your way, it doesn't make sense, as the first established nothing and there would be no reason for it. If you interpret it my way, it makes more sense. It establishes the right for militias to exist. This is because, as I've stated before, the U.S. army was almost nonexistent then, so the founding fathers decided to use the people to defend our country as well. In asking for the point of the first part, you imply that you are asking why the comma exists, referencing the first part of the amendment that is separated from the second by the comma." - No. I was asking that if your interpretation of the second amendment is correct, then why did the founding fathers put the first clause in? "The AR-15 CAN be used for hunting was my point, not the effectiveness of it. It is an accurate weapon when used correctly, and can take down most game cleanly. It is perfectly effective and useful for hunters. As for self defense, your point is useless, because you say a semi-automatic is not useful because its a medium range gun, but a pistol is semi-automatic, and you say that's useful. You rebut yourself, or just show a clear lack of knowledge of guns." - Obviously it CAN be used, but it isn't meant for it. A .50 caliber machine gun CAN be used, but it wouldn't do its' job well. An AR-15 isn't meant for hunting, because semi-auto guns are not meant for hunting. Bolt-Action rifles are. As for self defense, I call strawman. I never said it would be a poor self defense weapon because it was semi-auto, I say that because it is a longer ranged rifle when you would want a shotgun or a pistol. Yes, you can use it, but there are better guns for the task. So what is my point? This gun has no use for hunting, or self defense. There is no reason why you would have to own it. "They were not fools and were not oblivious to the existence of advanced firearms for the time. They were well-known firearms, the Giradoni rifles, and there is not one doubt in any person with common sense's mind that the founding fathers knew about them." - Your source helps me a lot. It says the reason why the fathers couldn't buy guns with multiple shots was because of the cost, giving me more ammunition for my technology argument. The fathers may have known about repeating rifles, but their effectiveness was so much worse then today. "that drone is equipped with a civilian grade firearm, I assumed you were referencing actual drones that were equipped with military grade weaponry that were accurate and dangerous. The drone you showed had no means of being accurate, isn't being mass produced, was handmade by the owner (just like any explosive or other dangerous things could be) and isn't in very many people's hands. And, like I said before, just because new tech is being produced, doesn't mean I should have to give up my rights in the modern world." - Yes, the drone shown isn't dangerous yet, but what about in 20 years? This is exactly what I am talking about. Right now, our laws about weaponized drones are fine, but what about in a couple decades? Our laws now will be horribly out of date. Now for guns. Yes, there were repeating rifles, but they were very expensive and impractical, as your sources show. Like the drone in the video I showed. It is impractical. But as time goes on, the drone and guns get way more advanced, and the laws regarding them need to change as well. And yes, you will need to give up your rights in a modern world. But the second amendment never covered the advanced rifles we had today. You might say, "But what about the Internet? The first amendment never game the right to online free speech." But, our laws have been updated to cover online speech. They haven't updated enough for guns though. Plus, not being allowed to own an assault rifle and having safety classes can save lives. Are you really willing to sacrifice other innocent people's lives for an assault rifle? "don't get what you are trying to say here. My point is that an AR-15 is a gun well fit for civilian use, it's not even a military weapon, and it is used in a minuscule amount of shootings." - The AR-15, as I pointed out, has no place in civilian hands. "come on. You don't expect people to buy this, right? These are all 3rd world countries, some of which have drug cartels. These are not fair comparisons. you tried to use countries with 10% of our population as a fair comparison too. I'd like to bring that back for a moment, actually. "rates are controlled for population" yes, but a rate per 100,000 people is not a percentage. It isn't equal if the total numbers are different. just because it is "controlled for population" doesn't mean it can be compared with countries with 300 million more people. these countries like Canada and Australia have much less "per 100,000's" than we do, so they have less people that CAN die per 100,000. These countries are also less free than we are. Like I've said, America should be a free country, even if that means giving up our safety. I'd rather have freedom over safety." - Please tell me you are trolling. First, your drop your own argument. You provided some examples, but they weren't fair comparisons, so now you attack me for using rates in my argument. Yes, they have fewer people who can die per 100,000, but their rate per 100,000 is significantly less. If you want it controlled for population, here: Japan had 11 gun murders in 2011. The US had over 8500. These are murders, not gun deaths in general. Japan has around 1/3 the population of the US. So if Japan had the population of the US, they would have 33 gun murders. Their rate is the same. So yes, I can compare countries with different populations. If what you said was true, why does Alaska, the state with very few people and weak gun laws have a much higher rate of gun murders then New York, a state with manny people and strong gun laws? I pointed this out earlier, that you didn't rebut. The 5 states with strong gun laws have the lowest gun murder rates, and the 5 states with weak gun laws have high gun murder rates. If you look at the chart I linked, you will see that states with the most gun laws have the lowest gun murder rates, and the states with the weakest gun laws have the highest gun murder rates. And how are Canada and Japan less free? "Please watch that video with a more open mind. You clearly ignored it just because of who was providing information. I know you don't like Steven Crowder," - I didn't watch the video because I want to hear your opinion, not Steven Crowder. I actually don't mind the dude. When BLM attacked his panel, I thought he handled that ok. "didn't agree. Don't make assumptions because I didn't rebut you. I didn't have enough characters, and I decided to focus on the new issues you brought into the argument" - But this was my main argument. Drop other things and rebut this. It isn't my fault that you ran out of characters. "Lower then whos'. And I was only basing this off gun homicides. Lower than most countries with high amounts of gun control." - Yeah, 3rd world countries. This isn't a fair comparrison. "since gun ownership has gone up in the recent decades, gun violence has gone down in the US" - Correlation, not causation. Funny enough, many countries with lower rates of gun ownership have lower gun murder rates [1]. "So he agrees; gun control reduces crime. DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER?" Oh sorry, I forgot. You identify as an attack helicopter :) To conclude, I have made several important points supporting my main point: That we should pass stronger gun laws. Here is a quick wrap up. Gun Murder rates: States and countries that have more gun control have lower gun murder rates [1]. Suicide: Lower rates of gun ownership = lower suicide rates Accidental Deaths: Passing gun laws and requiring safety devices on guns lowers gun deaths. Technology: As our guns get more advanced, our laws regarding guns need to change too, which means we need updated gun laws. Constitution: The constitution refers to a militia, not to individuals regarding the second amendment. AR-15s: They are poorly suited to civilian use, so why do we need them? Final word: This topic really comes down to this: Guns vs Safety. I choose safety, because people's lives are worth more then guns. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com...