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 123 of 171 FirstFirst ... 2373113121122123124125133 ... LastLast
Results 1,221 to 1,230 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #1221
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,832

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements

    1934 was the first federal crapping upon the second amendment

    and guess who did it? the arch crapper himself, the odious FDR
    Again - it matters not since those things what you and others consider as incremental encroachments and thus caused the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED have been upheld as legal.

    My argument is thus validated regardless if it was 225 years ago, 160 years ago or 80 years ago. there have been many incremental encroachments upheld in law and the right was never found to be INFRINGED by any of them. Thus my acceptance of the Websters 1828 dictionary definition of INFRINGED as used at the era of the adoption is valid and the view that INFRINGED means HINDER is not because incremental encroachments are not found to be a violations and not cause the right to be INFRINGED.

    Thank you for helping to prove that.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #1222
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by H. Lee White View Post
    5th amendment. Due Process.


    No one questions this.


    You'll have to quote the text and tell us what exactly you think he's saying.


    Like all others. No one questions this.

    The REAL quetsions:
    Do you know on what basis other rights are limited?
    Do you know the circumstances necessary for a restriction on a constitutionally-protected fundamenta right to not violate the constitution?
    There are those claiming the only proper process IS to amend the 2nd Amendment if restrictions are to be put on any amendment. There are quite a few who claim the exact opposite of Justice Scalia's opinion, that ANY restriction is an infringement and unconstitutional. They refuse to accept restrictions have been on the 2nd Amendment since before they were born and they try to pretend it just never happened.

    You should research Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case. I think he explains his opinion far better than I can, it is but a quick Google away.

    I know that once the Supreme Court renders a decision on the Constitutionality of a law or restriction that is the law of the land. The circumstances, justifications, and arguments for or against don't matter once the ruling is given. The restriction doesn't have to meet any legal bar or Constitutional threshold... amending the Constitution has an extremely difficult process, for good reason. Restricting the rights doesn't, again for a very good reason.

    Is why DOMA was a law and not a Constitutional amendment.

  3. #1223
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,832

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements
    A question for you Turtle

    is it your legal opinion that the right to keep and bear arms was NOT infringed on before 1934 by any government be it local, state or federal? Or is it your opinion that you simply do not care about those infringements because they were not done by the federal government?

    You also seem to ignore that when I stated that the right had been subject to incremental encroachment for 225 years it was done by the government - I did not specify which level of government that did these things. I would expect that a gun supporter would consider any level of government as equally damnable for their actions if they INFRINGED upon what the Second Amendment is suppose to guaranty.
    Last edited by haymarket; 12-26-12 at 06:24 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #1224
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Again - it matters not since those things what you and others consider as incremental encroachments and thus caused the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED have been upheld as legal.

    My argument is thus validated regardless if it was 225 years ago, 160 years ago or 80 years ago. there have been many incremental encroachments upheld in law and the right was never found to be INFRINGED by any of them. Thus my acceptance of the Websters 1828 dictionary definition of INFRINGED as used at the era of the adoption is valid and the view that INFRINGED means HINDER is not because incremental encroachments are not found to be a violations and not cause the right to be INFRINGED.

    Thank you for helping to prove that.
    Ya know Hay? We are all aware that you know how to spell infringed. We are also aware that you prefer to apply your own definition of it, rather than the ones which were etymologically correct at the time the 2nd was penned. There's really no need to keep capitalizing it, as we generally know how to read, and how to pick up subtle hints.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  5. #1225
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,832

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Ya know Hay? We are all aware that you know how to spell infringed. We are also aware that you prefer to apply your own definition of it, rather than the ones which were etymologically correct at the time the 2nd was penned. There's really no need to keep capitalizing it, as we generally know how to read, and how to pick up subtle hints.
    Lizzie - please pick which one is correct based on what you think the actual definition of the word INFRINGED means.

    The Second Amendment can only mean one of two opposite things because of the word INFRINGED.

    A - If the gun lobby advocates are correct, any incremental encroachment is indeed something which violates it and rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT. Any incremental encroachment - no matter how major or minor - how large or how small - how significant or how insignificant it may appear to others would indeed by a violation that rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT because it takes away the total complete control of that right from the individual. It must be that way - it has to be that way - it can only be that way because what is minor to one individual will be major to others so no incremental encroachment can be tolerated without violating the right and making it INFRINGED. And an act resulting in someones right - even one lone American - will still have the right to be INFRINGED. So it cannot be tolerated if the Second Amendment is to be honored in full.

    The other alternative is

    B - In 225 years of American history, the right to keep and bear arms has never been considered as an absolute which cannot be regulated or partially controlled by the government. We have had all manner of laws from outright ban and confiscation to registration to waiting periods to background checks to being legally denied to some individuals outright,. And all of that left untouched by the courts. So the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the true and actual meaning of the word INFRINGED. This means that the right cannot be regulated or controlled or impacted in such a way by government that the right is destroyed, is contravened, is neutralized or is negated. It will be up to the peoples government to decide where that falls in practical terms.

    There is no other way around this. It can only be one of those two visions.

    Either government can pass regulations on the right or government cannot pass regulations on the right because to do so would cause someones rights to be INFRINGED and that is forbidden by the Second Amendment.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #1226
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Lizzie - please pick which one is correct based on what you think the actual definition of the word INFRINGED means.

    The Second Amendment can only mean one of two opposite things because of the word INFRINGED.
    I've already provided it, but since you don't seem to understand:
    infringe (v.) mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from L. infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.

    fraction (n.) late 14c., originally in the mathematical sense, from Anglo-French fraccioun (Old French fraccion, 12c., "breaking") and directly from Late Latin fractionem (nom. fractio) "a breaking," especially into pieces, noun of action from pp. stem of Latin frangere "to break," from PIE root *bhreg- "to break" (cf. Sanskrit (giri)-bhraj "breaking-forth (out of the mountains);" Gothic brikan, Old English brecan "to break;" Lithuanian brasketi "crash, crack;" Old Irish braigim "break" wind). Meaning "a breaking or dividing" is from early 15c.; sense of "broken off piece, fragment," is from c.1600.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  7. #1227
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,832

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    I've already provided it, but since you don't seem to understand:
    infringe (v.) mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from L. infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.

    fraction (n.) late 14c., originally in the mathematical sense, from Anglo-French fraccioun (Old French fraccion, 12c., "breaking") and directly from Late Latin fractionem (nom. fractio) "a breaking," especially into pieces, noun of action from pp. stem of Latin frangere "to break," from PIE root *bhreg- "to break" (cf. Sanskrit (giri)-bhraj "breaking-forth (out of the mountains);" Gothic brikan, Old English brecan "to break;" Lithuanian brasketi "crash, crack;" Old Irish braigim "break" wind). Meaning "a breaking or dividing" is from early 15c.; sense of "broken off piece, fragment," is from c.1600.
    But if we apply YOUR definition that YOU support and YOU advocate and YOU think it right - it clearly and obviously goes against the long American history of all sorts of incremental encroachements that have been untouched by courts as rising to the level of a right that has been INFRINGED?

    How do you then reconcile your claim that your definition with its little BRUISING of a right constituting INFRINGED with the historical reality that lots of incremental encroachments or BRUISES if you will have been untouched by he courts and do not constitute a right that has been INFRINGED?

    Please answer this as it is the central key question on this issue: How do you reconcile the definition you feel is right with the reality that says otherwise?

    Again - if you are enjoying the right, it has not been BROKEN to use the definition you favor. And if it has not been BROKEn then even by your definition it does not rise ot the level of a right that has been INFRINGED.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #1228
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,010

    Re: Gun Control

    I wanna see him claim that a hurdle or three in a runners run path doesn't hinder. Bruise is a good one above ^. Bruising someone doesn't stop them but it hinders them. Standing in someones way doesn't stop them from going around you but it hinders them.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  9. #1229
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,832

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    I wanna see him claim that a hurdle or three in a runners run path doesn't hinder. Bruise is a good one above ^. Bruising someone doesn't stop them but it hinders them. Standing in someones way doesn't stop them from going around you but it hinders them.
    An excellent point. Which is why a mere hindrance or bruising would not rise to the level of a right that has been INFRINGED.

    Thank you for helping to prove that the use of the definition lizzie favors is not applicable and clearly wrong.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #1230
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Either government can pass regulations on the right or government cannot pass regulations on the right because to do so would cause someones rights to be INFRINGED and that is forbidden by the Second Amendment.
    So what regulations would you recommend be passed on the right to keep and bear arms?

Posting Permissions

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