Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

[Gaidin]

Appeal to authority doesn't really change the fact that US is the only country with constitutionally-mandated freedom of speech. And Canada is in a pretty bad place economically, politically and socially.

Constitutionally mandated freedoms has never stopped SCOTUS from allowing those freedoms to be limited. And that's an authority you can't stop.

Here's a specially dedicated edit for HH, since Canada was of particular interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi...s_and_Freedoms

[The spartan]

Appeal to authority doesn't really change the fact that US is the only country with constitutionally-mandated freedom of speech. And Canada is in a pretty bad place economically, politically and socially.

Your perception on what is "pretty bad" is immaterial; only a select few believe that Canada and most of Europe are under tyrannical rule. Though maybe you could explain how tyrannical governments maintain themselves while still holding elections.

[Heathen Hammer]

Constitutionally mandated freedoms has never stopped SCOTUS from allowing those freedoms to be limited. And that's an authority you can't stop.

Here's a specially dedicated edit for HH, since Canada was of particular interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi...s_and_Freedoms

US doesn't recognize "hate speech", Canada does. Same goes for UK, Germany, etc.
As it was said before, if Americans lose 2nd Amendment, they will lose 1st almost immediately after.

Your perception on what is "pretty bad" is immaterial; only a select few believe that Canada and most of Europe are under tyrannical rule. Though maybe you could explain how tyrannical governments maintain themselves while still holding elections.

I didn't say they were tyrannical, I said they have significantly less individual freedoms. My point still stands - US is the only country with constitutionally-mandated freedom of speech. In US you can say things that would result in a jail sentence in Canada and most of European countries. That makes US better when it comes to individual freedoms.

[The spartan]

As it was said before, if Americans lose 2nd Amendment, they will lose 1st almost immediately after.

Then take solace in the knowledge that the chances of the US losing the 2A in the foreseeable future are <1%.

[Gaidin]

US doesn't recognize "hate speech", Canada does. Same goes for UK, Germany, etc.
As it was said before, if Americans lose 2nd Amendment, they will lose 1st almost immediately after.

In spite of our Constitution not technically giving the Courts the right to take that "right" of hate speech away the Courts are quite happy to. So, again, Constitutionally mandated freedoms has never stopped a judge from going "What in the ever loving frak did you think you were doing?!" No matter what that right to do that was.

[Heathen Hammer]

In spite of our Constitution not technically giving the Courts the right to take that "right" of hate speech away the Courts are quite happy to. So, again, Constitutionally mandated freedoms has never stopped a judge from going "What in the ever loving frak did you think you were doing?!" No matter what that right to do that was.

Again, no such thing as "hate speech" in US. Or any other type of "bad speech". The only instance of courts acting in such a way that I can think of are cases of defamation between major media and businesses, which is outside the context of individual freedoms.

[Gaidin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

[Heathen Hammer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

So the only exceptions are things like false advertisement, corporate libel or restrictions of capacity of speech of specific government officials, which are well outside the context of free speech as form of expression of ideas or beliefs. No such thing as hate speech in US, as per this article.

[Gigantus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

Glad to hear that the 15K (or thereabouts) false statements of fact by POTUS45 have no constitutional value

No such thing as hate speech in US, as per this article.

That would be covered by the 'fighting words' section in that Wiki article although some loophole is provided by way of "directed to the person of the hearer" ' - hence it appears to be exclude speeches against groups, which is rather misleading as a group is made up of individiuals.
Come to think of it - it appears personal abuse by POTUS45 is not protected by 'free speech'. But fear not, the judiciary is most likely too busy kissing Donald's ass to take notice, emboldening him even more.

[Cope]

What are you on about? You can make an IED without mortar rounds or grenades nor do we have direct reason to believe it would become a major problem in the US. The amount of violent crime committed every year with explosive material is fairly low. Again, you may have your isolated terrorist incidents involving grenade launchers, but those already happen with a variety of other weapons that we consider justly protected. I don't know why fear of terrorist/criminal activity is justification to flat out ban one weapon system but not the other. You said the main reason for the 2A was to resist a tyrannical government. For some reason you seem to believe that ARs are the rational limit to what the 2A protects for the sake of staving off a tyrannical government. What is that reason? You seem to heavily imply that banning even the sales of ARs would ultimately end in tyranny but we can forgo access to slightly heavier weaponry and not have to worry about tyranny? Why is the limit on ARs?

As much as I appreciate the attempts to railroad the conversation toward absurdity ("if you want AR's why not artillery and rocket launchers?!") I've made my point clear on this. It simply isn't credible to compare the firepower of an AR round with, for instance, a 120 mm HE cartridge; weapons which can be delivered indirectly (or remotely) and have the capacity to level buildings are not the equivalent of personal small arms. The cartels, Islamists and psychopaths would have a field day stockpiling that sort of military tier ordnance.

Sure, but we both know what your "personal position" is, so I am not particularly interested in that.

Your hectoring tells a different story.

If you can't lay out any series of events that would conceivably lead to significant damage to the 2A, I would tend to think it isn't under imminent threat.

The FAWB does represent significant damage to the 2A.

You crowing on about how the Libs are coming for the guns (...eventually) isn't noteworthy.

Crowing is when you gloat, not when you make legitimate points against liberal encroachments.

RIP nations that restrict AR access, I guess, lost to tyranny.

The disarmament of a population facilitates tyranny. There's a reason why the US - unlike most other countries - has avoided extremist government. For once, try to be less ungrateful for the freedoms your ancestors left you.

Whatever final letter you want to use to mark your positions; it ends in tyranny, right? You are saying if Libs restrict access (say, sales) of ARs, you are saying that tyranny is inevitable?

As more rights are removed, the probability of a tyrannical government occurring approaches 1. The 1A and 2A are the fundamental rights which defend the rest; once you're disarmed and silenced, you won't have the ability to resist.

You mean like with the FAWB? That had no such "soft enforcement" ban on ownership of guns purchased prior to the ban. And the FAWB itself was an affront to the 2A, remember? So you don't even need to have enforcement to promote a national ban on ownership; just banning the sales and leaving already owned guns in circulation means tyranny!

Appeal to ridicule. See above.

See, when you say "incrementalism" you are implying that the ban of sales of assault weapons is not where Libs or Dems would stop. You are saying they are going to go further (if elected), right? That is why I am calling the fallacy.

You're "calling the fallacy" incorrectly and against the wrong party: Sanders, O'Rourke and others have stated their objectives. The people who're lying (according to your own argument and admissions) are the Ds., not me.

You don't have evidence for the "next step" Dems would take. "Eradicate ARs" is no more of a policy platform than making Mexico pay for a border wall and sounds like primary pandering. Come back to me when the Dem's general candidate is announcing their plans for a mandatory gun buyback bill.

I don't need to have "evidence" of how the next step would be achieved (although O'Rourke did say he would go house to house) in order to debunk your faulty accusations. And since you raised the wall, it's worth mentioning that the libs. didn't need to prove how Trump was planning to build the wall or "shutdown" all Muslim immigration to the US to argue that Trump wanted to build a wall and shutdown all Muslim immigration to the US.

No, my own argument is that Dems are coming out as tough on guns because they are jockeying for the primary and have little priority on banning even the sales of ARs. They have their own pet projects and I doubt would waste their political capital in congress for banning AR sales. I am being sarcastic because you are quoting non-policies from Dem Primary candidates and saying "Look at this! 'Ban ARs'! that means they are going to take your guns away the first chance they get, people!" in the least charitable interpretation of policy possible.

If people like Sanders had an opportunity to disarm the civilian populace, they would take it. That's according to their own words. Hitherto, your only defence to this position is that they wouldn't be able to do it in practice, even though banning the sale of said weapons (immediately plausible when the Ds. control Washington) would be an obvious first step in the pursuit of that objective.

Meanwhile, Trump get's the charitable interpretations to his rants about bringing back torture practices in the military or targeting cultural sites or whatever. You don't get your own special set of rules.

When have I ever been charitable towards those comments?

[The spartan]

As much as I appreciate the attempts to railroad the conversation toward absurdity ("if you want AR's why not artillery and rocket launchers?!") I've made my point clear on this. It simply isn't credible to compare the firepower of an AR round with, for instance, a 120 mm HE cartridge; weapons which can be delivered indirectly (or remotely) and have the capacity to level buildings are not the equivalent of personal small arms.

Absurdity? I didn't bring up nukes or tanks, just mortars and grenade launchers. That's not that much higher up in terms "heavy" weaponry than self-loading rifles. In fact, that seems like a real narrow window between a weapon that is absolutely necessary to avoid tyranny (ARs) and weapons that are unnecessary/detrimental to the point of "absurdity", which is the anti-gun argument. Almost like your distinction on protected/unprotected firearms is, dare I say, arbitrary.

The cartels, Islamists and psychopaths would have a field day stockpiling that sort of military tier ordnance.

Mmm, sounds like fear-mongering that could be equally applicable to ARs.

Your hectoring tells a different story.

As to what your personal position on a Constitutional amendment is? Keep dreaming. I care about the rhetoric you use and the tactics you employ but I don't really care about your "positions". They just seem like they are whatever you need them to be at the time.

The FAWB does represent significant damage to the 2A.

It already happened. Are you saying the 2A has already been dead for some time?

Crowing is when you gloat, not when you make legitimate points against liberal encroachments.

This reads like an HH line. You saying "Liberals are doing evil thing" isn't a significant event; no one cares. Of course you would state that position. What you need is to show there is some kind of imminent threat here, that the Dems have the means to destroy the 2A or whatever. Otherwise, you are just another hack saying "they are coming for your guns!" just like with every other presidential cycle in recent decades. Your claimed assuredness that they are "really going to do it" this time isn't going to cut it.

The disarmament of a population facilitates tyranny. There's a reason why the US - unlike most other countries - has avoided extremist government.

A tyrant may attempt to disarm perceived dissidents, but we have lots of examples of nations that have more stringent controls on ARs (such as requiring a license) while maintaining a high level of election integrity. And to claim that banning sales of ARs is tantamount to "disarmament of a populace" is quite something.

For once, try to be less ungrateful for the freedoms your ancestors left you.

No idea what this jab is about. Me and my ancestors are pretty square.

As more rights are removed, the probability of a tyrannical government occurring approaches 1. The 1A and 2A are the fundamental rights which defend the rest; once you're disarmed and silenced, you won't have the ability to resist.

And as you add more monkeys to a room full of typewriters, the probability they produce Hamlet approaches 1. Fortunately, as I have said before, the chances of the 2A (or 1A) going away is minimal. Dems would have to go around congress and SCOTUS.

Appeal to ridicule. See above.

The FAWB was already a thing, then it went away, and the 2A was just fine. Your doomsaying is just part of the prophetic cycle, I am afraid.

The people who're lying (according to your own argument and admissions) are the Ds., not me.

Sure, sure, but do you want to go over the alphabet real quick before continuing so you can better express your grade school reasoning? Lay off the bad faith, you know damn well what a Presidential Primary is. You aren't actually bothered by unkept primary promises.

You're "calling the fallacy" incorrectly and against the wrong party: Sanders, O'Rourke and others have stated their objectives.

I don't need to have "evidence" of how the next step would be achieved (although O'Rourke did say he would go house to house) in order to debunk your faulty accusations. And since you raised the wall, it's worth mentioning that the libs. didn't need to prove how Trump was planning to build the wall or "shutdown" all Muslim immigration to the US to argue that Trump wanted to build a wall and shutdown all Muslim immigration to the US.

Allow me to do the wall/Mexico equivalent of what you are doing with this primary gun control stuff:

Trump states in the Republican primary that he is going to build a wall on our southern border and "make Mexico pay for it". If I were to take that statement and say "look, Trump is talking about 'making' Mexico pay for a border wall, this is part of his plan to start a war with Mexico!", that would be insane. You may point out that this is likely just "tough talk" to stand out in the Republican primary and doesn't actually refer to any policy (would he try to use tariffs, some kind of trade leverage, what is the method?) but I could just say: "he stated his policy goal himself, he wants to 'make Mexico' pay for it, clearly that means his goal is to force Mexico to pay, violently if necessary". That's the meaningless level of presumption you are engaging in. You are going way out of your way to be as uncharitable as possible to the Dem candidates (gee, I wonder why?) in depicting their position on gun control.

If people like Sanders had an opportunity to disarm the civilian populace, they would take it. That's according to their own words.

Quote him, dooooo it.

Hitherto, your only defence to this position is that they wouldn't be able to do it in practice, even though even though banning the sale of said weapons (immediately plausible when the Ds. control Washington) would be an obvious first step in the pursuit of that objective.

The 2nd half of that is literally a slippery slope fallacy. You are doing it right now: "if they want to ban the sales of ARs, that's the first step to taking your guns".

Corner et al. say that a slippery slope has "four distinct components:

1. An initial proposal (A).
2. An undesirable outcome (C).
3. The belief that allowing (A) will lead to a re-evaluation of (C) in the future.
4. The rejection of (A) based on this belief.

The alleged danger lurking on the slippery slope is the fear that a presently unacceptable proposal (C) will (by any number of psychological processes—see, e.g., Volokh 2003) in the future be re-evaluated as acceptable."

That was a very good example, thank you.

When have I ever been charitable towards those comments?

I have seen you accuse others of being alarmists regarding Trump. Did you want to clarify? Did you take those comments as serious threats to commit war crimes?

[Cope]

Absurdity? I didn't bring up nukes or tanks, just mortars and grenade launchers. That's not that much higher up in terms "heavy" weaponry than self-loading rifles. In fact, that seems like a real narrow window between a weapon that is absolutely necessary to avoid tyranny (ARs) and weapons that are unnecessary/detrimental to the point of "absurdity", which is the anti-gun argument. Almost like your distinction on protected/unprotected firearms is, dare I say, arbitrary.

Of course there's a narrow window between what's acceptable and what's not. That's a fact of life which would be true even were I to accept your ad absurdum premise that military grade explosives are comparable to AR's (which I don't). A line has to be drawn somewhere and some things (fully automatic weapons for instance) will be on the wrong side of it. Trying to drown my argument in the infinite regress of "your line cannot be objectively proven (ie. is arbitrary)" is a waste of everyone's time.

Mmm, sounds like fear-mongering that could be equally applicable to ARs.

As I stated previously, the legality of ARs is necessary for the formation of militias as per the Constitution. Anything less (hunting rifles and six shooters) is not adequate for this purpose.

As to what your personal position on a Constitutional amendment is? Keep dreaming. I care about the rhetoric you use and the tactics you employ but I don't really care about your "positions". They just seem like they are whatever you need them to be at the time.

So you don't care that I oppose the criminalization of assault weapons, but you're willing to spend, what, at least seven or eight fairly lengthy posts complaining about it? I think you do care about me

It already happened. Are you saying the 2A has already been dead for some time?

I didn't say the FAWB killed the 2A; I said it damaged it prior to its expiration.

This reads like an HH line. You saying "Liberals are doing evil thing" isn't a significant event; no one cares.

The saltiness of your retorts says otherwise.

Of course you would state that position. What you need is to show there is some kind of imminent threat here, that the Dems have the means to destroy the 2A or whatever. Otherwise, you are just another hack saying "they are coming for your guns!" just like with every other presidential cycle in recent decades.

Why do I need to show an "imminent threat"? My argument is based on liberal incrementalism (a slow roll toward disarmament) not a presidential smash and grab.

Your claimed assuredness that they are "really going to do it" this time isn't going to cut it.

I shall not be coaxed from my vigilance by serpentine tricks: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour".

A tyrant may attempt to disarm perceived dissidents, but we have lots of examples of nations that have more stringent controls on ARs (such as requiring a license) while maintaining a high level of election integrity.

If you leave your door unlocked, eventually you'll be burgled.

The creeping authoritarianism of European governments shouldn't be scoffed at: there are people who are convicted for Twitter insults, jokes, using naughty words and disagreeing with mainstream socio-political orthodoxies. That's what happens when you let bands of mewling liberals loose on the law.

And to claim that banning sales of ARs is tantamount to "disarmament of a populace" is quite something.

The only reason to ban the sale of ARs is if you thought their ownership was inappropriate.

No idea what this jab is about. Me and my ancestors are pretty square.

It's about your attacks against those trying to protect certain liberties.

And as you add more monkeys to a room full of typewriters, the probability they produce Hamlet approaches 1. Fortunately, as I have said before, the chances of the 2A (or 1A) going away is minimal. Dems would have to go around congress and SCOTUS.

Thanks to the existence of conservatives, yes.

The FAWB was already a thing, then it went away, and the 2A was just fine. Your doomsaying is just part of the prophetic cycle, I am afraid.

Just because it "went away" (again, thanks to conservatives) doesn't mean it didn't cause damage during its existence or won't cause damage if it's resurrected (which it will be if you get your way).

Sure, sure, but do you want to go over the alphabet real quick before continuing so you can better express your grade school reasoning?

I'm glad to know that my reasoning is clear enough that a child could understand it; after all, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Lay off the bad faith, you know damn well what a Presidential Primary is. You aren't actually bothered by unkept primary promises.

You lay off the bad faith. You know damn well that there are plenty of senior Dems who, if they could snap their fingers and disarm the civilian population of assault weapons, would.

Allow me to do the wall/Mexico equivalent of what you are doing with this primary gun control stuff:

Trump states in the Republican primary that he is going to build a wall on our southern border and "make Mexico pay for it". If I were to take that statement and say "look, Trump is talking about 'making' Mexico pay for a border wall, this is part of his plan to start a war with Mexico!", that would be insane. You may point out that this is likely just "tough talk" to stand out in the Republican primary and doesn't actually refer to any policy (would he try to use tariffs, some kind of trade leverage, what is the method?) but I could just say: "he stated his policy goal himself, he wants to 'make Mexico' pay for it, clearly that means his goal is to force Mexico to pay, violently if necessary". That's the meaningless level of presumption you are engaging in. You are going way out of your way to be as uncharitable as possible to the Dem candidates (gee, I wonder why?) in depicting their position on gun control.

I see, so when O'Rourke stated that he wanted the police to go house to house to recover assault weapons, he was being metaphorical was he?

When asked by Morning Joe what he would do with people who refused to surrender their ARs, Beto replied: "Just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law. So in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm..."

Quote him, dooooo it.

One of Sanders' key points is to "regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own."

The 2nd half of that is literally a slippery slope fallacy. You are doing it right now: "if they want to ban the sales of ARs, that's the first step to taking your guns".

That was a very good example, thank you.

Many libs. have openly said that they want to criminalize assault weapon ownership; that means they've already evaluated C (the prospect of banning ARs) and found it, not just acceptable, but desirable. You continue to be wrong. Try again.

I have seen you accuse others of being alarmists regarding Trump. Did you want to clarify? Did you take those comments as serious threats to commit war crimes?

I do believe that Trump would've (perhaps he already has) sanctioned the water boarding of alleged terrorists, yes.

[Heathen Hammer]

That would be covered by the 'fighting words' section in that Wiki article although some loophole is provided by way of "directed to the person of the hearer" ' - hence it appears to be exclude speeches against groups, which is rather misleading as a group is made up of individiuals.
Come to think of it - it appears personal abuse by POTUS45 is not protected by 'free speech'. But fear not, the judiciary is most likely too busy kissing Donald's ass to take notice, emboldening him even more.

This thread is about gun rights.
For ORANGE MAN BAD rants there are multiple other threads on this forum.

[Infidel144]

That would be covered by the 'fighting words' section in that Wiki article although some loophole is provided by way of "directed to the person of the hearer" ' - hence it appears to be exclude speeches against groups, which is rather misleading as a group is made up of individiuals.

Chaplinsky v. NH has been repeatedly narrowed by the courts and and standard is now different.

[paleologos]

How has this become a thread about free speech?

[Gigantus]

This thread is about gun rights.

Could have fooled me given that the posts I responded to were exclusively about 'free speech', including yours: "No such thing as hate speech in US, as per this article."

Chaplinsky v. NH has been repeatedly narrowed by the courts and and standard is now different.

Thanks for that pointer.

[The spartan]

Of course there's a narrow window between what's acceptable and what's not. That's a fact of life which would be true even were I to accept your ad absurdum premise that military grade explosives are comparable to AR's (which I don't). A line has to be drawn somewhere and some things (fully automatic weapons for instance) will be on the wrong side of it. Trying to drown my argument in the infinite regress of "your line cannot be objectively proven (ie. is arbitrary)" is a waste of everyone's time.

So wait, why is your limit as to what is acceptable (fully automatic weapons for instance) the correct place to put the line and not somewhere else? Because you are special and you say so? And apparently not only is that the proper place to put the line, but it is, according to you (but not SCOTUS), where the clear distinction of 2A protections apply. 2A protecting fully automatic weapons is absurd; 2A protecting anything less is tyranny. I wish I had such a magical power to just "know" this stuff.

It's also interesting to note just how quickly you turned to gun-control rhetoric when challenged on just slightly heavier weapons than ARs. "Terrorist and psychopaths will use them for crime!" Gun-control advocates say the same thing about ARs. "It's military grade equipment!" Same was said about ARs. "It's absurd to let civilians have that much firepower!" Same. Thing. Said. About. ARs. The 2A itself doesn't exactly help you make this point, and you clearly don't care about what SCOTUS says about the 2A, so I can only assume your reasoning to put the line at ARs because you wanted to for purposes other than making a point. Btw, "military grade explosives" aren't really a thing, they are just called "explosives".

As I stated previously, the legality of ARs is necessary for the formation of militias as per the Constitution. Anything less (hunting rifles and six shooters) is not adequate for this purpose.

No their not. Without ARs, militia could still have access to Battle Rifles or PDWs and basically have the same amount of efficacy as if they had an AR. I would imagine a militia forming is much more dependent on it's organizational processes than exactly what weapons they have access to. And "adequate for this purpose" is the vaguery you are hinging on here. Adequate by whose standard, you? What if I said I don't think militia could adequately form without heavier machine guns or grenade launchers? I would automatically win, right? And then you would be the anti-gun advocate trying to damage the 2A to limit militias resisting a tyrannical government. It's like you don't even realize that the indignant responses you are giving to certain weaponry belies the same thought process a gun-control advocate has about ARs.

So you don't care that I oppose the criminalization of assault weapons, but you're willing to spend, what, at least seven or eight fairly lengthy posts complaining about it? I think you do care about me

No, I am complaining about your hackery and tactics, what you personally believe is immaterial to me.

I didn't say the FAWB killed the 2A; I said it damaged it prior to its expiration.

If it was damaged, it was apparently not in any lasting way. This seems self-contradictory: there is this dire threat to the 2A (forget even needing an amendment change, apparently any typical bill threatens it) if the Dems manage to ban AR sales, but that exact scenario already occurred and didn't seem to have dire effects. Maybe you are just fear mongering?

The saltiness of your retorts says otherwise.

How would the "saltiness of my retorts" reflect a concern specifically on your personal beliefs? I already said it's your rhetoric and tactics.

Why do I need to show an "imminent threat"? My argument is based on liberal incrementalism (a slow roll toward disarmament) not a presidential smash and grab.

Because that's taking the passive route of "they are coming for your guns...eventually!" You just want us to take your word that Libs are evil.

I shall not be coaxed from my vigilance by serpentine tricks: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour".

You really like to hype yourself up. You are just a partisan, not that special.

The creeping authoritarianism of European governments shouldn't be scoffed at: there are people who are convicted for Twitter insults, jokes, using naughty words and disagreeing with mainstream socio-political orthodoxies. That's what happens when you let bands of mewling liberals loose on the law.

HH (or Basil), can you hand the account back to ep1c_fail, please. Thanks.

The only reason to ban the sale of ARs is if you thought their ownership was inappropriate.

And if water is falling from the sky, it is raining. Fortunately for gun-owners, though, banning the sale of something is a completely different scope of policy than coercing people to give up something they already have. This is why, you know, the FAWB didn't have provisions for coercing citizens to give up the ARs they already owned prior to the ban.

It's about your attacks against those trying to protect certain liberties.

You aren't trying to protect jack for me. And I am apparently more Liberal (proper usage) on gun control than you are. Though, for very different reasons.

Thanks to the existence of conservatives, yes.

Well, more thanks to the systems of government (checks and balances), but sure. I am glad you agree the 2A and 1A are pretty safe.

Just because it "went away" (again, thanks to conservatives) doesn't mean it didn't cause damage during its existence or won't cause damage if it's resurrected (which it will be if you get your way).

No, it just means it's not really much of a threat itself, because the 2A was just fine despite 10 years of godless tyranny. The only way the 2A would be under actual threat would be if a anti-2A congress got 2/3rds in both houses or SCOTUS was stacked with judges that had restrictive views on the 2A, but both are laughably implausible in the foreseeable future. The FAWB was as easy to get rid of (shiny 2A still intact) as Bush just declining to renew it, a new bill wasn't even needed.

I'm glad to know that my reasoning is clear enough that a child could understand it; after all, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Do you go to the local shopping center around Christmas time and approach the man in a Santa outfit to accuse him of being a liar? Because "lying" is as simple as "it's always bad", amirite?!

You lay off the bad faith. You know damn well that there are plenty of senior Dems who, if they could snap their fingers and disarm the civilian population of assault weapons, would.

I don't think I have ever thought about such a bizarre scenario, but sure, there are probably senior Dems (unclear on the "plenty") who would make ARs disappear from the US if they could just snap their fingers and have it happen. I am not sure exactly what that hypothetical has to do with real world gun-control policy or my "bad faith"; I could list off a series of horrifying things senior GOP members would do if they could snap their fingers and have it done, if you want. But you sure as hell know about US presidential primaries and how they work and who is being pandered to by desperate candidates. And knowing that you are most likely aware of the process yet go ahead an say something as crass as: "you mean they are promising things in the primary they know they can't keep if elected?! That's lying!!!" like a high schooler who just found out about Ron Paul can really leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

I see, so when O'Rourke stated that he wanted the police to go house to house to recover assault weapons, he was being metaphorical was he?

When asked by Morning Joe what he would do with people who refused to surrender their ARs, Beto replied: "Just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law. So in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm..."

O'Rourke made a desperate move to be noticed so he could stay afloat in the primaries. You should be emboldened by the fact that it didn't work.

One of Sanders' key points is to "regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own."

That's a far cry from "I want to disarm the US populace" (I guess ARs are "all armaments" now) and still very vague on what policy would be done. Dems can't just "make ARs unlawful to own the same way as fully automatic weapons", that would make the ATF real sweaty around the collar and have no means of enforcement. There would need to be some kind of policy proposal, and given Sanders's choice of policy to focus on, this really comes off as an empty and vague promise to appease Dem primary voters who want more gun control.

I would also like to add, because we have been circling this point like a drain, but "banning ARs" in general is a vague term. I don't know if you have heard, but "bans" are not usually 100% things where legal ownership is impossible. Americans can own fully automatic machine guns and even anti-tank guns with the proper licensing and registration, like how most other nations handle ARs. When Americans are talking about "banning ARs", the likely policy they are speaking to is the degree of restriction being put on purchasing an AR.

Many libs. have openly said that they want to criminalize assault weapon ownership; that means they've already evaluated C (the prospect of banning ARs) and found it, not just acceptable, but desirable.

No, C is the outcome (illegal ownership of ARs), not the prospect of it. Allowing A (FAWB style ban of sales) does not necessarily lead to C; as should be evident by having A before without any policy move to C. A is a plausible goal for Dems (maybe), but C is not.

You continue to be wrong. Try again.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You should be careful, make that face too much and it might stick.

I do believe that Trump would've (perhaps he already has) sanctioned the water boarding of alleged terrorists, yes.

And so vague promises on gun control in the primaries is a serious concern about encroaching tyranny but the POTUS seriously promoting torture and war crimes is not a tyranny concern for you?

[paleologos]

I am assuming that 1A and 2A are shorthands for the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. (anyone please do correct me if I am wrong).

I would like to point out that the 2nd Amendment was made at a time when the most powerful personal firearm was the musket:
the best trained soldier would need about a minute to prepare the weapon for a second round after the first was fired.
If anyone is to be a 2nd Amendment absolutist, it is only proper that they insist the amendment in question only protects the types of firearms that existed when the amendment was made.
Or they should courageously admit that they are absolutists à la carte.

I am in favor of private gun ownership, by the way, yet it is self evident to me that there can be reasonable limitations to what firearms one may own.
In all honesty people, if you need 20 rounds in the clip your aim sucks crap.

[The spartan]

I am assuming that 1A and 2A are shorthands for the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. (anyone please do correct me if I am wrong).

I would like to point out that the 2nd Amendment was made at a time when the most powerful personal firearm was the musket:
the best trained soldier would need about a minute to prepare the weapon for a second round after the first was fired.
If anyone is to be a 2nd Amendment absolutist, it is only proper that they insist the amendment in question only protects the types of firearms that existed when the amendment was made.
Or they should courageously admit that they are absolutists à la carte.

I am in favor of private gun ownership, by the way, yet it is self evident to me that there can be reasonable limitations to what firearms one may own.
In all honesty people, if you need 20 rounds in the clip your aim sucks crap.

You are correct on the 1A/2A; I feel like the crux of any argument around weapon ownership, even with ep1c_fail, is around the concept of how lethal of a tool should an individual be allowed to own without requiring licensing. Problem is, the outcome to that concept is going to be a value judgement, not something based on a clear distinction. Some people are going to think an AR is too much and others will think it is fine. And that's ok, that's what most other countries do regarding gun control as well, there will be disagreements but it's not viewed as the most dire of issues. Even in the US, gun policy is currently ranking 5th in terms of importance. Most people have more direct and pressing concerns.

[paleologos]

You are correct on the 1A/2A; I feel like the crux of any argument around weapon ownership, even with ep1c_fail, is around the concept of how lethal of a tool should an individual be allowed to own without requiring licensing. Problem is, the outcome to that concept is going to be a value judgement, not something based on a clear distinction. Some people are going to think an AR is too much and others will think it is fine. And that's ok, that's what most other countries do regarding gun control as well, there will be disagreements but it's not viewed as the most dire of issues. Even in the US, gun policy is currently ranking 5th in terms of importance. Most people have more direct and pressing concerns.

No disagreement here for the most part and on the surface of it, no disagreement at all.
I sense, however, the insinuation that any delineation of how much firepower is too much can only be arbitrarily based on anyone's personal values, that no objectivity here is remotely possible.
This is the point where I beg to differ and I can only do my best to elaborate, so please bear with me.

We believe that a person should not be deprived of life without "due process" and some people believe not at all.
A firearm allows it's wielder to take lives with ease and without due process.
It also allows them to defend themselves from those who would do just that.
In as much as none of the above is controversial, we can declare the three lines above as "objectively true", right?

Now, how much firepower exactly, does anyone need to defend themselves?
Because if anyone are preparing for a zombie apocalypse I wouldn't want them to have any weapon at all, not even a jack knife.
I would assert that if you need a rifle for hunting, then one shot should be all you need, just aim carefully.
If you need something for home defense, a shotgun is perfect.
If you must have a handgun, then a six chambered revolver should be enough but let's be liberal, shall we, let's allow all non automatic hand guns.

The insistence of some people to possess an AR-15 cannot be explained by the above allowances.
Even more so, the insistence to possess bump stocks should be alarming to say the least.
These are the kinds of munitions one would be stockpiling if they were planning to get into a prolonged firefight.
That's not self-defense, it's not hunting and it's not animal control.

But I will be liberal enough as to not advocate for a ban on the sale of AR-15s on one condition:
My concerns about my own safety compel me to insist that anyone who would possess more firepower that what self-defense and hunting may justify should at least be required to have their sanity assessed on a regular basis.
Quite frankly, people, if the look in your neighbor's kid eyes is anything like that...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...then you really don't want them to have access to an AR-15.