View Poll Results: Support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 29.27%
  • No

    29 70.73%
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 113

Thread: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    Do you support a constitutional amendment that guarantees all citizens who are not convicted felons the right to own fully automatic assault weapons? It would be meant to amend or clarify the second amendment.
    Why stop there?

    Why can't I own a biological or chemical weapon?

    You know, just in case I don't agree with the outcome of a national election.

  2. #102
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    181,837

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    That man is one of my biggest heroes. I read his book marine sniper and am still to this day baffled at how such a myth of a man could've existed.
    One of his proteges was a Sgt named Jack Caseman who I knew from the USA shooting international shotgun circuit. Sgt Caseman was TRIPLE DISTINGUISHED-got an international badge in Shotgun for being on the Skeet team, WON THE MCMILLAN trophy for pistol at Camp Perry and was a distingueshed rifle shot from his years on the Marine Rifle Team that won the Service rifle team etc. He also was a great compound archer. I shot at a couple NSSA world championships and Olympic trials etc with JC-I doubt there was anyone circa 1986-1994 who was as skilled a marksman in the world.


    BTW I think I held about 5.5 feet over the target for that shot-the rifle was zeroed at 200M-its been 36 years though

  3. #103
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    181,837

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Why stop there?

    Why can't I own a biological or chemical weapon?

    You know, just in case I don't agree with the outcome of a national election.
    those aren't individual infantry arms

    NEXT

  4. #104
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,682

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Actually if you were educated on caliber selection you'd know the 300 winmag ruled the LR roost in Hathcock's day. It is what he used at Camp Perry.

    IF you had said the 300wm or 7remmag instead of 30 ought you would have shown some caliber savvy. The 30 ought owes it's popularity more to age than excellence. That a caliber is popular doesn't make the owner Dan'l Boone just as the popular 30/30 is by no means a sniper round.

    Now as far as who is competition for you at a rifle shoot, is but one way to find out... I have a 1000 yard steel range available... come on down, I always enjoy shooting with someone who thinks they have something to teach me. Might even get Steve Suttles to spot for us. The school is active this time of year.

    Now back on millions of guys ready to shoot a dictator at 800 yards...

    That you think you can doesn't validate anything. That you think the dictator will wait patiently to be shot, and he got to be dictator without a large armed entourage...

    More fantasy mind games.

    You think the military won't disarm civilians... bet you screamed a blue moon when the Guard seized weapons in New Orleans after Katrina. You REALLY sure the military won't seize weapons from civilians? Way I see it, if a Dictator gains power a sizable portion of military will believe the malcontents need to be disarmed. N your kind will be said malcontents.

    Ft. Lewis, I was stationed there back when you were hunting in Africa. You sound like one of those guys who dabbles here and there and thinks he actually did the deed. Please tell me, did you ever serve in the military? You ever earn cash money by being a LR Tactical Instructor?

    But do come on down and school me. You can add it to your rhetoric. As far as SOTIC, and the US shooting teams, hell anyone who hits the Hipower/F-Class circuit shoots and shoots the **** with those guys. They have some interesting theories on spin drift...

  5. #105
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Actually if you were educated on caliber selection you'd know the 300 winmag ruled the LR roost in Hathcock's day. It is what he used at Camp Perry.

    IF you had said the 300wm or 7remmag instead of 30 ought you would have shown some caliber savvy. The 30 ought owes it's popularity more to age than excellence. That a caliber is popular doesn't make the owner Dan'l Boone just as the popular 30/30 is by no means a sniper round.

    Now as far as who is competition for you at a rifle shoot, is but one way to find out... I have a 1000 yard steel range available... come on down, I always enjoy shooting with someone who thinks they have something to teach me. Might even get Steve Suttles to spot for us. The school is active this time of year.

    Now back on millions of guys ready to shoot a dictator at 800 yards...

    That you think you can doesn't validate anything. That you think the dictator will wait patiently to be shot, and he got to be dictator without a large armed entourage...

    More fantasy mind games.

    You think the military won't disarm civilians... bet you screamed a blue moon when the Guard seized weapons in New Orleans after Katrina. You REALLY sure the military won't seize weapons from civilians? Way I see it, if a Dictator gains power a sizable portion of military will believe the malcontents need to be disarmed. N your kind will be said malcontents.

    Ft. Lewis, I was stationed there back when you were hunting in Africa. You sound like one of those guys who dabbles here and there and thinks he actually did the deed. Please tell me, did you ever serve in the military? You ever earn cash money by being a LR Tactical Instructor?

    But do come on down and school me. You can add it to your rhetoric. As far as SOTIC, and the US shooting teams, hell anyone who hits the Hipower/F-Class circuit shoots and shoots the **** with those guys. They have some interesting theories on spin drift...
    Just stop. TD's credentials aren't in question here, yours are.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #106
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,728

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Actually if you were educated on caliber selection you'd know the 300 winmag ruled the LR roost in Hathcock's day. It is what he used at Camp Perry.

    IF you had said the 300wm or 7remmag instead of 30 ought you would have shown some caliber savvy. The 30 ought owes it's popularity more to age than excellence. That a caliber is popular doesn't make the owner Dan'l Boone just as the popular 30/30 is by no means a sniper round.

    Now as far as who is competition for you at a rifle shoot, is but one way to find out... I have a 1000 yard steel range available... come on down, I always enjoy shooting with someone who thinks they have something to teach me. Might even get Steve Suttles to spot for us. The school is active this time of year.

    Now back on millions of guys ready to shoot a dictator at 800 yards...

    That you think you can doesn't validate anything. That you think the dictator will wait patiently to be shot, and he got to be dictator without a large armed entourage...

    More fantasy mind games.

    You think the military won't disarm civilians... bet you screamed a blue moon when the Guard seized weapons in New Orleans after Katrina. You REALLY sure the military won't seize weapons from civilians? Way I see it, if a Dictator gains power a sizable portion of military will believe the malcontents need to be disarmed. N your kind will be said malcontents.

    Ft. Lewis, I was stationed there back when you were hunting in Africa. You sound like one of those guys who dabbles here and there and thinks he actually did the deed. Please tell me, did you ever serve in the military? You ever earn cash money by being a LR Tactical Instructor?

    But do come on down and school me. You can add it to your rhetoric. As far as SOTIC, and the US shooting teams, hell anyone who hits the Hipower/F-Class circuit shoots and shoots the **** with those guys. They have some interesting theories on spin drift...
    If we need to, we could just get Mark Wahlberg. I saw him hit a guy who was standing on a moving vehicle in the head from 900 meters away.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  7. #107
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    using the logic of the feminists like Sandra Fluke, not only should we be ALLOWED to own a full auto firearm(or any firearm) they should be provided for us free of charge!
    From the ashes.

  8. #108
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    using the logic of the feminists like Sandra Fluke, not only should we be ALLOWED to own a full auto firearm(or any firearm) they should be provided for us free of charge!
    And provided by the Brady Campaign, and other anti-gun groups.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #109
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Not correct. The Revolutionary war was not won with words, it was won with cannons, guns, and guerilla warfare. The king of England didn't give two ****s that the founders asserted their rights on paper, matter of fact he sent ships full of men with cannons, guns, swords, and a willingness to suppress those issuing the words. The storming of the Bastille was not done with discourse, it was done with weapons. The last time a group of teenagers tried to topple the regime in China with words was Tiennamin square, tanks and men with guns quickly ended that discourse.
    First, if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post instead of just the first sentence, you would understand that just rebelling against England was meaningless. America didn't take on freedom and democratic government simply because it rebelled. We could just as easily have become a tyrannical monarchy, but simply ruled by different people. It is the text of the constitution and the rule of law that made the revolution mean anything. The fighting would have just been on behalf of a few greedy landowners if they had set up a new aristocracy. It was the words the founders set down that created the template for modern democratic government, not the bullets and bayonets.

    As for Tienanmen Square, do you realize that the shame and derision that was aimed at China because of the massacre is one of the major reasons why China has become less totalitarian? The violence didn't end the discourse, it didn't end the struggle, it didn't stop those students from making progress towards their goals. It only ended the people. And we all know that killing a person doesn't destroy what they stood for. Is actually sacrificing something for your patriotism too complex an idea for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Your premise seems to be faulty. What makes you think any of those things are constitutional?
    Well, the war on drugs really isn't (my opinion, opposed by half a century of supreme court rulings), but it will need a major movement in favor of stripping the government of power and reinforcing the fourth amendment to make that happen. Restoring the fourth amendment is one of the few situations where I think a major overturning of previous supreme court doctrine would be both possible and beneficial.

    Most of the first amendment ones actually are quite reasonable, though, and pass the strictest of scrutiny. What makes me think some things are constitutional and some aren't is that I, in a fit of madness, actually study law, read constitutional cases, and learn how the whole thing works.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    That's the thing I cannot understand, the stance of "well, we've infringed other rights, let's just infringe on one I don't respect as well". The other thing most people fail to understand about the limits of certain rights is that the limits are on abuse, not exercise.

    For instance: Speech - If it offends it is most likely protected, if it provably harms it is not(incitement to violence, fighting words, libel, slander, defamation); Commerce - That which is not in conflict of a good faith agreement should be protected(fraud, negligence, and bad faith dealings are not); gun rights - Owning a weapon harms no one, negligent or malicious use do.
    Right there, you are listing infringements that are reasonable. Clearly these amendments are not meant to be 100% ironclad. They are meant to bend a little. So I return to my original question. Why is it that pro gun people take the position that the second amendment is immune to this sort of bending, when no other rule is? The same people who argue that the fourteenth amendment wasn't intended to protect homosexuals because the writers weren't thinking of them then turn around and say that the second amendment applies to all kinds of weapons that didn't exist in 1798. All I am seeking is come consistency.

    The second amendment guarantees the right to own weapons. It does not say anything about owning all types of weapons, nor about owning weapons free from registration, training, or accountability. I, and most other people who are opposed to the proliferation of weapons, do not want to remove the right to own weapons. We just want some regulation to keep the whole thing as safe as possible. And since that same regulation is applied to every other amendment, and done so in a consistent manner, passing the same tests for legitimacy, regardless of the right involved, why should the second amendment be immune?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  10. #110
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    First, if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post instead of just the first sentence, you would understand that just rebelling against England was meaningless. America didn't take on freedom and democratic government simply because it rebelled. We could just as easily have become a tyrannical monarchy, but simply ruled by different people. It is the text of the constitution and the rule of law that made the revolution mean anything. The fighting would have just been on behalf of a few greedy landowners if they had set up a new aristocracy. It was the words the founders set down that created the template for modern democratic government, not the bullets and bayonets.

    As for Tienanmen Square, do you realize that the shame and derision that was aimed at China because of the massacre is one of the major reasons why China has become less totalitarian? The violence didn't end the discourse, it didn't end the struggle, it didn't stop those students from making progress towards their goals. It only ended the people. And we all know that killing a person doesn't destroy what they stood for. Is actually sacrificing something for your patriotism too complex an idea for you?



    Well, the war on drugs really isn't (my opinion, opposed by half a century of supreme court rulings), but it will need a major movement in favor of stripping the government of power and reinforcing the fourth amendment to make that happen. Restoring the fourth amendment is one of the few situations where I think a major overturning of previous supreme court doctrine would be both possible and beneficial.

    Most of the first amendment ones actually are quite reasonable, though, and pass the strictest of scrutiny. What makes me think some things are constitutional and some aren't is that I, in a fit of madness, actually study law, read constitutional cases, and learn how the whole thing works.



    Right there, you are listing infringements that are reasonable. Clearly these amendments are not meant to be 100% ironclad. They are meant to bend a little. So I return to my original question. Why is it that pro gun people take the position that the second amendment is immune to this sort of bending, when no other rule is? The same people who argue that the fourteenth amendment wasn't intended to protect homosexuals because the writers weren't thinking of them then turn around and say that the second amendment applies to all kinds of weapons that didn't exist in 1798. All I am seeking is come consistency.

    The second amendment guarantees the right to own weapons. It does not say anything about owning all types of weapons, nor about owning weapons free from registration, training, or accountability. I, and most other people who are opposed to the proliferation of weapons, do not want to remove the right to own weapons. We just want some regulation to keep the whole thing as safe as possible. And since that same regulation is applied to every other amendment, and done so in a consistent manner, passing the same tests for legitimacy, regardless of the right involved, why should the second amendment be immune?
    Dude, your initial claim was that words freed more people than anything else, which is false, anything further was irrelevant.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •