I really should avoid posting debate arguments after midnight. Now that I reread it, it have a few typos and editing errors. My initial argument was 3,300 characters over the limit, so I had to do some serious editing.
Continued
When it comes to short range situations involving large numbers of people, an automatic rifle is much more dangerous than a semiautomatic or bolt action, whereas a sniper rifle is borderline useless. That is why the military issues assault rifles like the M4 that can switch to fully automatic.
Tl;dr
Semi-automatics are not as dangerous in mass shooting-type scenarios as automatics.
"a mean looking military looking semi automatic rifle with those bad thngs attached flash suppressor bayont lug pistol grip, assualt rifle usually refers to the civilian semi automatic version of any military rifle that uses an intermediate cartrige"
Actually, that's a decent description of the colloquial definition. However, its complete disconnect from the gun's lethality is why I made this debate.
"only look ive owned semi automatic rifles like that a colt sporter to be exact you can do as much damage with a semi automatic as a select fire weapon all you have to do is keep pulling the trigger,"
Owning one type of gun doesn't mean you are qualified to compare it to another type of gun. You would need knowledge and/or experience with both types of guns in order to compare them. Also, you are incorrect that you can do as much damage with a semi-automatic. A fully automatic gun can shoot much faster than you can pull the trigger.
" in some situations its more deadly because in semi automatic you can actually be accurate, if your in a sitaution where you can just spray full auto is more deadly, but not by much"
It is situational. However, mass shootings tend to happen in areas with large numbers of people, which is a circumstance in which an auto would be more deadly. Also, it is possible to be accurate with an auto. While it's true that it is hard to be as accurate, mass shootings hardly require precision.
"name one full auto ever used for sniper purposes.. many are still bolt action arent they? see"
Irrelevant. The whole point of an automatic gun is to fire quickly, frequently at multiple targets. The point of a sniper rifle is to fire with extreme accuracy at extreme range, frequently over a kilometer. Modern sniper rifles are extremely specialized and expensive. If you compare any other type of rifle with them, the other rifle will look inaccurate and short ranged. Automatics may not be the most accurate weapon. That does not make them inaccurate.
"And that’s a handgun — not a semi-automatic rifle capable of rapid fire."
Semiautomatic firearms are not capable of rapid fire. You pull the trigger and you get one shot. The rate of fire is limited by how fast you can pull the trigger. The exact same thing is true of the vast majority of handguns.
Obama unilaterally starting DACA even after saying a few years earlier that he had no authority to do so is one example. Much of FDR's New Deal (most notably the National Recovery Administration, which ironically was called the NRA) was unconstitutional. I'll stop there, however. If I were to list every example of the R's or D's violating the Constitution, or even just the notable examples, I'd be sitting here for a very long time.
"I conceed it was not unconstitutional,"
Did you just change your mind in an internet debate? That's rare, and I congratulate you for your honesty.
"You did say you agree republicans ignore the constiution when convenient. What are your examples?"
Supporting Trump's emergency declaration is the first one that comes to mind. There are a lot of things both parties ignore, like the fact that only Congress can declare war. However, Congress regularly lets presidents of both parties get away with sending soldiers to fight foreign countries without congressional approval. Another example would be instituting price controls in the days of "stagflation" in the 70s. (I think that was Nixon, but I could be wrong. Of course, we all know what he thought of the constitution and the law).
"These are people entrusted by the people to run there government. It is their duty to advise and consent the president. They can reject the nomination, but they cannot ignore it."
Asserting it does not make it so. The constitution gives them the power to advise and consent. It does not give them the duty to advise and consent. It specifies that a condition of an SC justice being appointed is the advice and consent of the Senate. It does not specify any conditions for the justice not being appointed. The justice has to be confirmed in order to be appointed, but he does not have to be rejected in order to not be appointed. Read it for yourself. Nowhere does the constitution say that they have to vote on who the president nominates.
"Im not saying they broke the law, I'm saying they are failing to do their job. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and yet they are ignoring it"
If they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution - which they did not in this instance but have done in other instances - they are breaking the law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
"Also the supreme court was designed by the constitution to have 9 judges."
Then please explain why the people who wrote the constitution appointed only five. No, the constitution does not specify a number of SC justices, nor is it designed for any specific number.
To quote the most relevant part of the article
"The president negotiates treaties and the Senate consents or does not consent to them. One chamber of Congress passes bills and the other chamber passes or does not pass them. The president proposes laws and Congress enacts or does not enact them. Congress proposes constitutional amendments and state legislatures ratify or do not ratify them. The Constitution is not read in any of these situations to impose a duty on the second entity to act formally on the proposal. If the second entity fails to approve, for whatever reason and in whatever manner, the measure does not take effect."
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"
From Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
This is what the Constitution says in regards to the appointment of SC justices. "By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." In no way does this mean that they have to consider and vote on his nominees. It means that their advice and consent is required in order for the justice to be appointed. It does not say that they have to give their advice and consent. The constitution gives them the power to advise and consent to nominations; it does not require them to give that. If I give you the power to bake cookies, that does not mean you have the duty to bake cookies. Here is an article that explains it better than I can:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-the-senate-doesnt-have-to-act-on-merrick-garlands-nomination/
While I agree that republicans do ignore the constitution sometimes, the specific example you chose was not unconstitutional in the slightest. There is nothing in the constitution that says the Supreme Court has to be a specific size. There is nothing in it that says the Senate must accept the president's nomination. There is nothing in it that says justices have to be replaced. While you can complain about the result of McConnell's refusal to confirm Garland, there was nothing remotely unconstitutional about it.
How long are you two going to debate this? At this point, you're just repeating the same things with minor variations and slightly different analogies.
Even though I'm pro-2A, if I had absolute power, I would change it just to correct the bad grammar.
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm aware that this is Kritiking, but even so, it would be nice to apply modern grammar to make it more clear.
"At what point is something not an assault rifle?
When it could not possibly used in an assault."
"There is a very specific definition for assault rifle which includes the option of automatic fire. Since an AR-15 is not designed for auto it is not an assault rifle according to a well established definition that goes back as far as Hitler."
Both of these can't be true. You might say that they can be true in different contexts but
|
|
\/
"But supposing some uninitiated soul might call a rifle used in an assault an "assault" rifle I find little fault with the adjective's usage."
When someone uninitiated calls a rifle an assault rifle, they think that means it is more dangerous than other rifles. So when you say you "find little fault with the adjective's usage" when they "call a rifle used in an assault an "assault" rifle," the uninitiated person doesn't realize the distinction and assumes that an assault rifle is more dangerous when all you mean is that it is used in assault. All this does is confuse. Pick a definition and stick with it. If you insist on using both, then please make the distinction very clear, because, unlike other terms with multiple meanings like "well," it is very difficult to tell which definition you're referring to from the context.
"Your confusion is based on a classic misconception. Science is not limited to experimentation. Einstein didnt do any experimentation, at least for his famous theroems. Does that mean einstein and relativity arent science? Sorry, now im laughing."
Einstein may not have done experiments, but it is possible to test his theory with experiments. It isn't possible to run experiments to test history, whether that's evolution, the existence of George Washington, or what I ate for breakfast. Even if I can demonstrate that evolution is possible, that George Washington is the best explanation for the War of Independence, or that I almost always eat cereal for breakfast, that wouldn't indisputable prove that any of those things happened. It might demonstrate that they are extremely probable, but it wouldn't prove them.
"*slow clap*"
"Slow clap back at ya :)"
Whenever someone ends a comment with "slow clap" or "mic drop," my natural reaction is to think that they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not saying that applies to you two, but you might want to think twice before ending your comments with a mocking put-down. At the very least, you won't change any minds that way.
"I did forget about trolls... But at a certain point, things fall short of being a real debate."
Most YECs aren't trolls. Sure, an unusually high proportion of internet YECs are trolls, but that is also true of atheists, Republicans, Democrats, people who think random splashes of paint on canvas is real art...okay, maybe not that last one.
"No rifle is made to specifically kill humans."
Military rifles like the AK-47 are designed to do just that, although they can be and are used for other purposes.
"With that kind of application, even a bolt action could be considered an "Assault Rifle" as bolt actions were also used in the war.
Is the Springfield M1903 an assault rifle? It was a weapon used in both world wars. What about the M1 Garand? Is that an assault rifle?
At what point is something not an assault rifle? Because the word seems to be selectively applied to things deemed "too dangerous" for civilian."
He wasn't calling the AR-15 an assault rifle. He was calling it an assault weapon. I think he's wrong to call it an assault weapon, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't calling it an assault rifle.
"Rabbits are brown during the summer white during the winter.The white during the winter connected them.So now it is safe for me to say God created the rabbit white to match the white snow."
Cardinals are red in the summer and red during the winter. The white during the winter did not connect them. So now it is safe for me to say God did not create the cardinal because it doesn't match the white snow.
If you apply that logic to rabbits, it must also apply to other things. This leaves you with three options:
1. Since that logic applied to rabbits proves God's existence and that same logic applied to cardinals disproves God's existence, accept that the logic must be faulty.
2. Argue that for some unexplainable reason that this logic only applies to rabbits and other animals that turn white in winter that support your conclusion but not to animals that don't turn white in winter and don't support your conclusion. (i.e. cherrypicking or special pleading)
3. Accept that the logic does apply to both and does lead to a contradiction, but continue to believe that it is valid logic, thereby proving, once again, that denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
crossed, I believe in God as well. But that does not mean that every single argument presented to support Christianity is valid. The argument that you are using is no more than a bad analogy that leads to contradictory conclusions if applied consistently. Let it go.
How about we have a debate over the existence of the Illuminati rather than just firing comments back and forth? It looks like everyone here already knows that the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle and that no one will accept that debate, so I should have the time for debating the Illuminati.
"Your saying he is false because you do not like his opinion. Well you might fine his conspiracy theory stuff a little more factual then you think"
No, I am saying he is wrong because such conspiracy theories have been debunked in every possible way and do not have an ounce of evidence to support them.
What millions dead? That link takes me to a definition of a Greek word, not to a story of millions dying.
So you believe in the Illuminati? How do you know they exist, and why are you still alive? If you know about them, why haven't they killed you yet, or at least prevented you from posting about it?
Continued
"Based on my findings across the year 2016 I have reached a full consciousness to declare that Christmas was not supposed to be a Christian festival if the world was to be fair unto itself and unto Jesus Christ Himself.
While not judging anyone who celebrates Christmas; my conviction is that celebrating the holiday is to some considerable level, subconsciously taking part in Satanism and the advancement of the Reptilian Agenda (also known as the Babylonian Agenda) which seeks to turn the World into one state, with one leader, one currency, one health system and one everything."
This guy you linked to is an absolute nut and a conspiracy theorist. He has no evidence for his claims of a New World Order or a "Reptilian Agenda," whatever that is. Stay far away from such people. They claim to be telling the truth about God, Satan, and the world, but their claims have no basis in reality or Scripture.
""the pain of discovering that for a long time many of us have ignorantly been taking part in celebrating a pagan holiday that is so very closely (almost inseparably) related to Satanism, blood-drinking, and human sacrificing."
https://malawi24.com/2016/12/20/opinion-christmas-not-birth-christ-just-satanic-festivity/
Why would Christians want to make a bootlegged version of a holiday about blood drinking and human sacrifice.No the holiday was repackaged for the christian people"
Because we don't drink blood or sacrifice humans. It is sheer nonsense to say that we are celebrating that when we aren't doing it. The whole reason that Christians made a "bootlegged version" of Saturnalia is so people would stop celebrating Saturnalia. Here is a quote from the article you cited:
Through a little on-going research that has taken me through various books written by prominent people (who know what’s going on in the New World Order Agenda), many suppressed discoveries and revelations that were never allowed to see full publicity, and video products that have for a long time been concealed (by the people moving the Agenda), I have discovered many things that have actually enlightened me and several other researchers on how foolish we people have been for ages, simply because we don’t care.
"Through a little on-going research that has taken me through various books written by prominent people (who know what’s going on in the New World Order Agenda), many suppressed discoveries and revelations that were never allowed to see full publicity, and video products that have for a long time been concealed (by the people moving the Agenda), I have discovered many things that have actually enlightened me and several other researchers on how foolish we people have been for ages, simply because we don’t care."
Actually, Christmas was invented to replace pagan evil by getting people to celebrate the birth of Christ rather than the pagan festival Saturnalia, so its origins are the exact opposite of pagan evil. The debate you link to is devoid of evidence and consists solely of baseless assertions.
"Real anology
The company building is colored blue.The employee uniform was colored blue.Thus the blue uniform was created blue to match the blue building
Weasle's have white fur during the winter when there is white snow. The weasel was colored white to match the white snow.
False analogy
My mom has a blue shoe. SO was my mom shoe colored blue to match the blue company building.
My paper is colored white. Was it colored white to match the white weasel"
Extremely ridiculous and false analogy:
"Santa is just satan rearranged.
both are depicted with red
Santa last name is claws."
I don't think we should teach children that Santa is real even though he isn't, but comparing him to the devil is just ridiculous. Santa originally came from the story of St. Nicholas throwing bags of gold down a chimney. It has nothing to do with Satan.
"This deals with the spaghetti monster ideology to.
similarly how people believe that believe in jesus us like believing in santa.
Santa is just satan rearranged.
both are depicted with red
Santa last name is claws."
It drives me crazy when people use such coincidental reasoning as though it proves anything. Let me show you how ridiculous this is.
Santa is just T NASA, or THE NASA, rearranged.
Santa is depicted in red and white, and the American flag is also red and white.
Therefore, Santa represents the American space agency NASA.
Santa rearranged is tan as, which could be the start of a simile.
Santa's last name is clause.
Therefore, Santa represents grammatical clauses that are similes.
Clinton rearranged is lint con.
Lint comes from laundry.
Con refers to scams.
Therefore, all Clintons are money launderers.
This debate seems somewhat pointless to me. If God exists, then He almost certainly created morality. If He doesn't exist, then He didn't create it. Shouldn't the real question be whether or not He exists?
Semiautomatics don't fill the animals full of lead. It only takes one or two shots to bring down an animal. I've lived in a place where nearly everyone hunts. Regardless of their weapon, whether bow, semiauto, or bolt action, they always eat what they hunt or give it to someone who will. In fact, that's something they teach in hunter safety class. Your assertion that people can only hunt for sport with a semiauto and that they have no civilian purpose could not be farther from the truth.
Thanks for the welcome! So far, I've enjoyed the site and it's users. I am honestly and pleasantly surprised by how much you know about the AR-15. Most people who call it an assault weapon don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.
If you knew that they're used for hunting, why did you repeat the myth that they're not, or at least not frequently? Also, semiautomatics do have advantages over bolt actions. For instance, if you miss, your eyes don't have to leave the sight to pull back the bolt. I don't see how they are any less safe than bolt actions so far as hunting is concerned.
"None of which keeps the AR-15 from being a rifle originally designed for a military purpose. Any rifle designed for killing humans can be accurately described as made for "assault"- whatever the nice legal and commercial distinctions."
And none of that changes the fact that the AR-15 that was designed for the military became the M16 and the modern AR-15 was designed for civilians and not for assault. That also doesn't change the fact that defining "assault weapons" as weapons designed for assault would include such things as swords and bows, or, if you limit it to firearms, muskets. The net effect of such a definition is to completely dissociate the term from lethality, usage, or statistics, rendering the term completely irrelevant to the gun control debate.
Continued
(Just look at the picture. I have no idea what the rest of the site is about.)
That rifle is the M1 garand. It looks very unassuming and un-assault-rifle-y. It also has a caliber over 30% larger and is at least twice as powerful as the AR-15. I'm showing this to demonstrate the complete arbitrariness of the term "assault weapon." When the media and politicians use it, they aren't referring to unusually dangerous guns, but just to scary-looking guns.
Continued
I will stop quoting here because it gets into the technicalities of the gun that resulted from this: the Sturmgewehr-44. The point of this is that "assault rifle" doesn't refer to rifles designed for assault but instead to rifles that follow the pattern laid out by the Sturmgewehr-44, which was a rifle that had the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and automatic fire (or burstfire, in the case of some M16 models).
"You are claiming (ridiculously) that an assault weapon that is a rifle must never be mistaken for an assault rifle."
I am claiming no such thing. The M16, M4, and AK-47 are all assault weapons that are rifles that are, in fact, assault rifles.
"Given that the argument has a long history of use by the NRA to distract from the AR-15's relative unworthiness for self-defense, hunting, or other legal purpose, the premise is certainly open to attack."
That isn't even remotely true. The AR-15 is extremely popular for hunting. Its capacity for large magazines, ease of use, and especially its stopping power make it an excellent choice for self-defense, especially against multiple criminals. Finally, nearly any firearm, including machine guns, can be used for entirely legal recreation, such as firing them at shooting ranges. Contrary to popular mythology (I don't mean to be rude, but it really is mythology), the AR-15 is in no way, shape, or form more dangerous than most other semiautomatic rifles. Its caliber is fairly small (0.556 mm), it cannot fire any faster than any other semiautomatic weapon, and it does not have a high muzzle velocity. All told, it is actually very ordinary. For comparison, here is a picture of another rifle that no one would consider an assault rifle (for the excellent reason that it was invented before the concept of assault rifles even existed):
https://www.gunsamerica.com/952754350/Springfield-Armory-M1-Garand-Tanker-30-06.htm
"In the big picture, however, you are arguing that a rifle made for the purposes of assault cannot be accurately termed an assault rifle."
Yes and no. I'll start with no because AR-15s were not made for assault. The original AR-15 design which became the M16 was, but it had the option of automatic or burstfire (I forget which) that made it fundamentally different from the modern AR-15, which is designed for civilian use and not for assault. I say yes because that isn't what the term assault rifle means. It doesn't just refer to any rifle made for assault, but to rifles made for a specific kind of assault. To quote from the book "Small Arms from the 17th Century to the Present Day" (This site needs italics, and no, that book isn't a collection of pro-gun propaganda, but a list of guns, their specifications, and histories),
"Experience in the early years of World War II demonstrated that modern combat was likely to take place at relatively short ranges, often in urban terrain, and that concentrated firepower was at least as desirable as long-range accuracy in a service rifle. One solution might have been to issue submachine guns more widely, but this would create a situation where a proportion of infantry would be powerless at ranges over 100m (328 ft). A single weapon, capable of accurate fire at reasonable range yet handy enough to be effective in close-quarters urban fighting, was desirable. The result was the weapon originally designated MP (machine-pistol)-44 but quickly renamed a 'storm rifle' - i.e. what would become known as an assault rifle."
So "to K" would be to bring up an irrelevant topic rather than address the premise? Sounds like that would spoil the point of the debate, unless the premise was something truly unusual or ridiculous.
"This seems like an easy win for con. No K necessary. It flat out isnt."
Are you saying that the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle? If so, that would mean it should be an easy win for pro because the premise is "The AR-15 is not an assault rifle." I'm a little confused.
Ramshutu, thanks for removing my vote. Next time, I'll look before I leap. I think I also voted on a different debate before I read the rules, but I can't remember which one. I do remember that it was a debate in which all the rounds were forfeited, though.
Ramshutu, could you provide a link to the doj's definition of an assault weapon? So far as I can tell, they either don't have one or titled the webpage something that doesn't resemble "definition of an assault weapon," because I can't find it. I found their definition of assault and a short list of firearm laws, but nothing about assault weapons.
I really should avoid posting debate arguments after midnight. Now that I reread it, it have a few typos and editing errors. My initial argument was 3,300 characters over the limit, so I had to do some serious editing.
Thanks for accepting the debate! I had expected that no one would take the debate. I should have my argument up today or tomorrow.
Can you increase the character limit? It takes a lot of space to do rebuttals.
Also, it's legal to hunt humans. It makes no sense to me, but Senator Feinstein said it, so it must be true.
I noticed, but thanks for reminding me.
Continued
When it comes to short range situations involving large numbers of people, an automatic rifle is much more dangerous than a semiautomatic or bolt action, whereas a sniper rifle is borderline useless. That is why the military issues assault rifles like the M4 that can switch to fully automatic.
Tl;dr
Semi-automatics are not as dangerous in mass shooting-type scenarios as automatics.
"a mean looking military looking semi automatic rifle with those bad thngs attached flash suppressor bayont lug pistol grip, assualt rifle usually refers to the civilian semi automatic version of any military rifle that uses an intermediate cartrige"
Actually, that's a decent description of the colloquial definition. However, its complete disconnect from the gun's lethality is why I made this debate.
"only look ive owned semi automatic rifles like that a colt sporter to be exact you can do as much damage with a semi automatic as a select fire weapon all you have to do is keep pulling the trigger,"
Owning one type of gun doesn't mean you are qualified to compare it to another type of gun. You would need knowledge and/or experience with both types of guns in order to compare them. Also, you are incorrect that you can do as much damage with a semi-automatic. A fully automatic gun can shoot much faster than you can pull the trigger.
" in some situations its more deadly because in semi automatic you can actually be accurate, if your in a sitaution where you can just spray full auto is more deadly, but not by much"
It is situational. However, mass shootings tend to happen in areas with large numbers of people, which is a circumstance in which an auto would be more deadly. Also, it is possible to be accurate with an auto. While it's true that it is hard to be as accurate, mass shootings hardly require precision.
"name one full auto ever used for sniper purposes.. many are still bolt action arent they? see"
Irrelevant. The whole point of an automatic gun is to fire quickly, frequently at multiple targets. The point of a sniper rifle is to fire with extreme accuracy at extreme range, frequently over a kilometer. Modern sniper rifles are extremely specialized and expensive. If you compare any other type of rifle with them, the other rifle will look inaccurate and short ranged. Automatics may not be the most accurate weapon. That does not make them inaccurate.
"And that’s a handgun — not a semi-automatic rifle capable of rapid fire."
Semiautomatic firearms are not capable of rapid fire. You pull the trigger and you get one shot. The rate of fire is limited by how fast you can pull the trigger. The exact same thing is true of the vast majority of handguns.
What is the colloquial definition?
You must be billsands from DDO.
https://www.debate.org/billsands/
No problem. I'll probably post my rebuttal tomorrow or Thursday.
Bump
Obama unilaterally starting DACA even after saying a few years earlier that he had no authority to do so is one example. Much of FDR's New Deal (most notably the National Recovery Administration, which ironically was called the NRA) was unconstitutional. I'll stop there, however. If I were to list every example of the R's or D's violating the Constitution, or even just the notable examples, I'd be sitting here for a very long time.
"I conceed it was not unconstitutional,"
Did you just change your mind in an internet debate? That's rare, and I congratulate you for your honesty.
"You did say you agree republicans ignore the constiution when convenient. What are your examples?"
Supporting Trump's emergency declaration is the first one that comes to mind. There are a lot of things both parties ignore, like the fact that only Congress can declare war. However, Congress regularly lets presidents of both parties get away with sending soldiers to fight foreign countries without congressional approval. Another example would be instituting price controls in the days of "stagflation" in the 70s. (I think that was Nixon, but I could be wrong. Of course, we all know what he thought of the constitution and the law).
"These are people entrusted by the people to run there government. It is their duty to advise and consent the president. They can reject the nomination, but they cannot ignore it."
Asserting it does not make it so. The constitution gives them the power to advise and consent. It does not give them the duty to advise and consent. It specifies that a condition of an SC justice being appointed is the advice and consent of the Senate. It does not specify any conditions for the justice not being appointed. The justice has to be confirmed in order to be appointed, but he does not have to be rejected in order to not be appointed. Read it for yourself. Nowhere does the constitution say that they have to vote on who the president nominates.
"Im not saying they broke the law, I'm saying they are failing to do their job. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and yet they are ignoring it"
If they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution - which they did not in this instance but have done in other instances - they are breaking the law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
"Also the supreme court was designed by the constitution to have 9 judges."
Then please explain why the people who wrote the constitution appointed only five. No, the constitution does not specify a number of SC justices, nor is it designed for any specific number.
To quote the most relevant part of the article
"The president negotiates treaties and the Senate consents or does not consent to them. One chamber of Congress passes bills and the other chamber passes or does not pass them. The president proposes laws and Congress enacts or does not enact them. Congress proposes constitutional amendments and state legislatures ratify or do not ratify them. The Constitution is not read in any of these situations to impose a duty on the second entity to act formally on the proposal. If the second entity fails to approve, for whatever reason and in whatever manner, the measure does not take effect."
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"
From Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
This is what the Constitution says in regards to the appointment of SC justices. "By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." In no way does this mean that they have to consider and vote on his nominees. It means that their advice and consent is required in order for the justice to be appointed. It does not say that they have to give their advice and consent. The constitution gives them the power to advise and consent to nominations; it does not require them to give that. If I give you the power to bake cookies, that does not mean you have the duty to bake cookies. Here is an article that explains it better than I can:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-the-senate-doesnt-have-to-act-on-merrick-garlands-nomination/
While I agree that republicans do ignore the constitution sometimes, the specific example you chose was not unconstitutional in the slightest. There is nothing in the constitution that says the Supreme Court has to be a specific size. There is nothing in it that says the Senate must accept the president's nomination. There is nothing in it that says justices have to be replaced. While you can complain about the result of McConnell's refusal to confirm Garland, there was nothing remotely unconstitutional about it.
They would get two senators and a representative.
Don't forget.
How long are you two going to debate this? At this point, you're just repeating the same things with minor variations and slightly different analogies.
Do you want to accept the debate? It doesn't look like I'll get any other takers.
That's easy. It doesn't stand for assault rifle. It stands for Armalite Rifle (Armalite is the company that invented it).
Even though I'm pro-2A, if I had absolute power, I would change it just to correct the bad grammar.
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm aware that this is Kritiking, but even so, it would be nice to apply modern grammar to make it more clear.
"At what point is something not an assault rifle?
When it could not possibly used in an assault."
"There is a very specific definition for assault rifle which includes the option of automatic fire. Since an AR-15 is not designed for auto it is not an assault rifle according to a well established definition that goes back as far as Hitler."
Both of these can't be true. You might say that they can be true in different contexts but
|
|
\/
"But supposing some uninitiated soul might call a rifle used in an assault an "assault" rifle I find little fault with the adjective's usage."
When someone uninitiated calls a rifle an assault rifle, they think that means it is more dangerous than other rifles. So when you say you "find little fault with the adjective's usage" when they "call a rifle used in an assault an "assault" rifle," the uninitiated person doesn't realize the distinction and assumes that an assault rifle is more dangerous when all you mean is that it is used in assault. All this does is confuse. Pick a definition and stick with it. If you insist on using both, then please make the distinction very clear, because, unlike other terms with multiple meanings like "well," it is very difficult to tell which definition you're referring to from the context.
"Your confusion is based on a classic misconception. Science is not limited to experimentation. Einstein didnt do any experimentation, at least for his famous theroems. Does that mean einstein and relativity arent science? Sorry, now im laughing."
Einstein may not have done experiments, but it is possible to test his theory with experiments. It isn't possible to run experiments to test history, whether that's evolution, the existence of George Washington, or what I ate for breakfast. Even if I can demonstrate that evolution is possible, that George Washington is the best explanation for the War of Independence, or that I almost always eat cereal for breakfast, that wouldn't indisputable prove that any of those things happened. It might demonstrate that they are extremely probable, but it wouldn't prove them.
"*slow clap*"
"Slow clap back at ya :)"
Whenever someone ends a comment with "slow clap" or "mic drop," my natural reaction is to think that they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not saying that applies to you two, but you might want to think twice before ending your comments with a mocking put-down. At the very least, you won't change any minds that way.
"I did forget about trolls... But at a certain point, things fall short of being a real debate."
Most YECs aren't trolls. Sure, an unusually high proportion of internet YECs are trolls, but that is also true of atheists, Republicans, Democrats, people who think random splashes of paint on canvas is real art...okay, maybe not that last one.
"No rifle is made to specifically kill humans."
Military rifles like the AK-47 are designed to do just that, although they can be and are used for other purposes.
"With that kind of application, even a bolt action could be considered an "Assault Rifle" as bolt actions were also used in the war.
Is the Springfield M1903 an assault rifle? It was a weapon used in both world wars. What about the M1 Garand? Is that an assault rifle?
At what point is something not an assault rifle? Because the word seems to be selectively applied to things deemed "too dangerous" for civilian."
He wasn't calling the AR-15 an assault rifle. He was calling it an assault weapon. I think he's wrong to call it an assault weapon, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't calling it an assault rifle.
"Rabbits are brown during the summer white during the winter.The white during the winter connected them.So now it is safe for me to say God created the rabbit white to match the white snow."
Cardinals are red in the summer and red during the winter. The white during the winter did not connect them. So now it is safe for me to say God did not create the cardinal because it doesn't match the white snow.
If you apply that logic to rabbits, it must also apply to other things. This leaves you with three options:
1. Since that logic applied to rabbits proves God's existence and that same logic applied to cardinals disproves God's existence, accept that the logic must be faulty.
2. Argue that for some unexplainable reason that this logic only applies to rabbits and other animals that turn white in winter that support your conclusion but not to animals that don't turn white in winter and don't support your conclusion. (i.e. cherrypicking or special pleading)
3. Accept that the logic does apply to both and does lead to a contradiction, but continue to believe that it is valid logic, thereby proving, once again, that denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
crossed, I believe in God as well. But that does not mean that every single argument presented to support Christianity is valid. The argument that you are using is no more than a bad analogy that leads to contradictory conclusions if applied consistently. Let it go.
How about we have a debate over the existence of the Illuminati rather than just firing comments back and forth? It looks like everyone here already knows that the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle and that no one will accept that debate, so I should have the time for debating the Illuminati.
"Your saying he is false because you do not like his opinion. Well you might fine his conspiracy theory stuff a little more factual then you think"
No, I am saying he is wrong because such conspiracy theories have been debunked in every possible way and do not have an ounce of evidence to support them.
What millions dead? That link takes me to a definition of a Greek word, not to a story of millions dying.
So you believe in the Illuminati? How do you know they exist, and why are you still alive? If you know about them, why haven't they killed you yet, or at least prevented you from posting about it?
Continued
"Based on my findings across the year 2016 I have reached a full consciousness to declare that Christmas was not supposed to be a Christian festival if the world was to be fair unto itself and unto Jesus Christ Himself.
While not judging anyone who celebrates Christmas; my conviction is that celebrating the holiday is to some considerable level, subconsciously taking part in Satanism and the advancement of the Reptilian Agenda (also known as the Babylonian Agenda) which seeks to turn the World into one state, with one leader, one currency, one health system and one everything."
This guy you linked to is an absolute nut and a conspiracy theorist. He has no evidence for his claims of a New World Order or a "Reptilian Agenda," whatever that is. Stay far away from such people. They claim to be telling the truth about God, Satan, and the world, but their claims have no basis in reality or Scripture.
""the pain of discovering that for a long time many of us have ignorantly been taking part in celebrating a pagan holiday that is so very closely (almost inseparably) related to Satanism, blood-drinking, and human sacrificing."
https://malawi24.com/2016/12/20/opinion-christmas-not-birth-christ-just-satanic-festivity/
Why would Christians want to make a bootlegged version of a holiday about blood drinking and human sacrifice.No the holiday was repackaged for the christian people"
Because we don't drink blood or sacrifice humans. It is sheer nonsense to say that we are celebrating that when we aren't doing it. The whole reason that Christians made a "bootlegged version" of Saturnalia is so people would stop celebrating Saturnalia. Here is a quote from the article you cited:
Through a little on-going research that has taken me through various books written by prominent people (who know what’s going on in the New World Order Agenda), many suppressed discoveries and revelations that were never allowed to see full publicity, and video products that have for a long time been concealed (by the people moving the Agenda), I have discovered many things that have actually enlightened me and several other researchers on how foolish we people have been for ages, simply because we don’t care.
"Through a little on-going research that has taken me through various books written by prominent people (who know what’s going on in the New World Order Agenda), many suppressed discoveries and revelations that were never allowed to see full publicity, and video products that have for a long time been concealed (by the people moving the Agenda), I have discovered many things that have actually enlightened me and several other researchers on how foolish we people have been for ages, simply because we don’t care."
Actually, Christmas was invented to replace pagan evil by getting people to celebrate the birth of Christ rather than the pagan festival Saturnalia, so its origins are the exact opposite of pagan evil. The debate you link to is devoid of evidence and consists solely of baseless assertions.
"Real anology
The company building is colored blue.The employee uniform was colored blue.Thus the blue uniform was created blue to match the blue building
Weasle's have white fur during the winter when there is white snow. The weasel was colored white to match the white snow.
False analogy
My mom has a blue shoe. SO was my mom shoe colored blue to match the blue company building.
My paper is colored white. Was it colored white to match the white weasel"
Extremely ridiculous and false analogy:
"Santa is just satan rearranged.
both are depicted with red
Santa last name is claws."
I don't think we should teach children that Santa is real even though he isn't, but comparing him to the devil is just ridiculous. Santa originally came from the story of St. Nicholas throwing bags of gold down a chimney. It has nothing to do with Satan.
"This deals with the spaghetti monster ideology to.
similarly how people believe that believe in jesus us like believing in santa.
Santa is just satan rearranged.
both are depicted with red
Santa last name is claws."
It drives me crazy when people use such coincidental reasoning as though it proves anything. Let me show you how ridiculous this is.
Santa is just T NASA, or THE NASA, rearranged.
Santa is depicted in red and white, and the American flag is also red and white.
Therefore, Santa represents the American space agency NASA.
Santa rearranged is tan as, which could be the start of a simile.
Santa's last name is clause.
Therefore, Santa represents grammatical clauses that are similes.
Clinton rearranged is lint con.
Lint comes from laundry.
Con refers to scams.
Therefore, all Clintons are money launderers.
This debate seems somewhat pointless to me. If God exists, then He almost certainly created morality. If He doesn't exist, then He didn't create it. Shouldn't the real question be whether or not He exists?
Semiautomatics don't fill the animals full of lead. It only takes one or two shots to bring down an animal. I've lived in a place where nearly everyone hunts. Regardless of their weapon, whether bow, semiauto, or bolt action, they always eat what they hunt or give it to someone who will. In fact, that's something they teach in hunter safety class. Your assertion that people can only hunt for sport with a semiauto and that they have no civilian purpose could not be farther from the truth.
Thanks for the welcome! So far, I've enjoyed the site and it's users. I am honestly and pleasantly surprised by how much you know about the AR-15. Most people who call it an assault weapon don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.
If you knew that they're used for hunting, why did you repeat the myth that they're not, or at least not frequently? Also, semiautomatics do have advantages over bolt actions. For instance, if you miss, your eyes don't have to leave the sight to pull back the bolt. I don't see how they are any less safe than bolt actions so far as hunting is concerned.
"None of which keeps the AR-15 from being a rifle originally designed for a military purpose. Any rifle designed for killing humans can be accurately described as made for "assault"- whatever the nice legal and commercial distinctions."
And none of that changes the fact that the AR-15 that was designed for the military became the M16 and the modern AR-15 was designed for civilians and not for assault. That also doesn't change the fact that defining "assault weapons" as weapons designed for assault would include such things as swords and bows, or, if you limit it to firearms, muskets. The net effect of such a definition is to completely dissociate the term from lethality, usage, or statistics, rendering the term completely irrelevant to the gun control debate.
Edit: the AR-15's caliber is 5.56 mms, not 0.556.
Continued
(Just look at the picture. I have no idea what the rest of the site is about.)
That rifle is the M1 garand. It looks very unassuming and un-assault-rifle-y. It also has a caliber over 30% larger and is at least twice as powerful as the AR-15. I'm showing this to demonstrate the complete arbitrariness of the term "assault weapon." When the media and politicians use it, they aren't referring to unusually dangerous guns, but just to scary-looking guns.
Continued
I will stop quoting here because it gets into the technicalities of the gun that resulted from this: the Sturmgewehr-44. The point of this is that "assault rifle" doesn't refer to rifles designed for assault but instead to rifles that follow the pattern laid out by the Sturmgewehr-44, which was a rifle that had the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and automatic fire (or burstfire, in the case of some M16 models).
"You are claiming (ridiculously) that an assault weapon that is a rifle must never be mistaken for an assault rifle."
I am claiming no such thing. The M16, M4, and AK-47 are all assault weapons that are rifles that are, in fact, assault rifles.
"Given that the argument has a long history of use by the NRA to distract from the AR-15's relative unworthiness for self-defense, hunting, or other legal purpose, the premise is certainly open to attack."
That isn't even remotely true. The AR-15 is extremely popular for hunting. Its capacity for large magazines, ease of use, and especially its stopping power make it an excellent choice for self-defense, especially against multiple criminals. Finally, nearly any firearm, including machine guns, can be used for entirely legal recreation, such as firing them at shooting ranges. Contrary to popular mythology (I don't mean to be rude, but it really is mythology), the AR-15 is in no way, shape, or form more dangerous than most other semiautomatic rifles. Its caliber is fairly small (0.556 mm), it cannot fire any faster than any other semiautomatic weapon, and it does not have a high muzzle velocity. All told, it is actually very ordinary. For comparison, here is a picture of another rifle that no one would consider an assault rifle (for the excellent reason that it was invented before the concept of assault rifles even existed):
https://www.gunsamerica.com/952754350/Springfield-Armory-M1-Garand-Tanker-30-06.htm
"In the big picture, however, you are arguing that a rifle made for the purposes of assault cannot be accurately termed an assault rifle."
Yes and no. I'll start with no because AR-15s were not made for assault. The original AR-15 design which became the M16 was, but it had the option of automatic or burstfire (I forget which) that made it fundamentally different from the modern AR-15, which is designed for civilian use and not for assault. I say yes because that isn't what the term assault rifle means. It doesn't just refer to any rifle made for assault, but to rifles made for a specific kind of assault. To quote from the book "Small Arms from the 17th Century to the Present Day" (This site needs italics, and no, that book isn't a collection of pro-gun propaganda, but a list of guns, their specifications, and histories),
"Experience in the early years of World War II demonstrated that modern combat was likely to take place at relatively short ranges, often in urban terrain, and that concentrated firepower was at least as desirable as long-range accuracy in a service rifle. One solution might have been to issue submachine guns more widely, but this would create a situation where a proportion of infantry would be powerless at ranges over 100m (328 ft). A single weapon, capable of accurate fire at reasonable range yet handy enough to be effective in close-quarters urban fighting, was desirable. The result was the weapon originally designated MP (machine-pistol)-44 but quickly renamed a 'storm rifle' - i.e. what would become known as an assault rifle."
So "to K" would be to bring up an irrelevant topic rather than address the premise? Sounds like that would spoil the point of the debate, unless the premise was something truly unusual or ridiculous.
How would you run a K on this debate?
"This seems like an easy win for con. No K necessary. It flat out isnt."
Are you saying that the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle? If so, that would mean it should be an easy win for pro because the premise is "The AR-15 is not an assault rifle." I'm a little confused.
Thanks!
He said it wasn't an assault rifle. He didn't say it wasn't a rifle.
Ramshutu, thanks for removing my vote. Next time, I'll look before I leap. I think I also voted on a different debate before I read the rules, but I can't remember which one. I do remember that it was a debate in which all the rounds were forfeited, though.
Ramshutu, could you provide a link to the doj's definition of an assault weapon? So far as I can tell, they either don't have one or titled the webpage something that doesn't resemble "definition of an assault weapon," because I can't find it. I found their definition of assault and a short list of firearm laws, but nothing about assault weapons.