View Poll Results: Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

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

    87 42.65%
  • No

    102 50.00%
  • Others

    15 7.35%
Page 100 of 171 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110150 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,000 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #991
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Well then that makes it even easier....but then you failed.....to provide a link.
    I don't have any intention of searching through posts where I talk about it. That's doesn't make your "right wing" claim about me valid.

    Oh, that's right....you keep playing the "I'm not saying I have a right to military weaponry" dance.
    I'm not. I fully agree that no-one should have hand-grenades, RPGs or tactical nukes in their homes.

  2. #992
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I've never heard of 26 round magazines.
    LOL....I was not talking about "26 round" magazines. As I said, you lost track of the point and the math.

    But go on...


    Not quite sure where math comes in either.
    I know, you have made that abundantly clear.

    Review...the argument made was "higher capacity magazines allow for getting numbers of dead"

    you said "I don't see how, can change a mag in 2 secs"

    and I said "that would be 26 rounds" (rate of fire/AR-15 in 2 secs)

    You somehow can't put together the concept that a high capacity mag would allow a shooter to get off at least 26 more rounds without the mag swap.

    Is it sinking in yet?
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #993
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Like Justice Scalia, I have no wish to prohibit all firearms. As the Justice put it:
    ""Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'
    and also like he said, that applies in certain places and certain times.

  4. #994
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    What, you really don't understand how that counters the whole "I have a right to military weaponry"?
    I never said you do.

  5. #995
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    and also like he said, that applies in certain places and certain times.
    Okie dokie!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #996
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I don't have any intention of searching through posts where I talk about it. That's doesn't make your "right wing" claim about me valid.
    It certainly makes your claim to supporting it less valid.



    I'm not. I fully agree that no-one should have hand-grenades, RPGs or tactical nukes in their homes.
    But of course, the "line" under discussion is fully auto rifles...if you hadn't noticed.

    Can you get anymore oblique?
    I bet you can, in fact I have personally seen it.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  7. #997
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Okie dokie!
    IF you'd really like Scalia's take, here's a good example:

    "Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
    We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

    District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

  8. #998
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I never said you do.
    Ah, still dancing! Are we talking nukes? No, we aren't.

    Is this it? Is the the limit on moving the discussion forward? Just gonna drag it out as long as possible..huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  9. #999
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    It certainly makes your claim to supporting it less valid.
    No it doesn't.

    But of course, the "line" under discussion is fully auto rifles...if you hadn't noticed.
    No one is arguing for possesion of full-auto firearms.

    Can you get anymore oblique?
    I bet you can, in fact I have personally seen it.
    Nice personal attack. Got anything of substance?

  10. #1000
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    LOL....I was not talking about "26 round" magazines. As I said, you lost track of the point and the math.

    But go on...

    I know, you have made that abundantly clear.

    Review...the argument made was "higher capacity magazines allow for getting numbers of dead"

    you said "I don't see how, can change a mag in 2 secs"

    and I said "that would be 26 rounds" (rate of fire/AR-15 in 2 secs)

    You somehow can't put together the concept that a high capacity mag would allow a shooter to get off at least 26 more rounds without the mag swap.

    Is it sinking in yet?
    The rate of fire for an AR-15 is only in the 700-800 rpm range when it is fully automatic, which is already illegal in the US. The semi automatic version depends on how fast your trigger finger is. You fail.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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