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 69 of 171 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119169 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #681
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The great lakes
    Last Seen
    06-12-13 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    An excellent "cop out", as usual! The point that you failed to see is that the police protect "we the sheeple" from the same threats that we face. They normally encounter "crime in progress" only when it is reported to them by a citizen complaint (or alarm signal), via their dispatcher; in other words, they face the same threats as the "normal" people do (if they manage to arrive in time).
    The victim is -always- at the scene of the crime.

  2. #682
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,551

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by H. Lee White View Post
    The victim is -always- at the scene of the crime.
    That little detail seems to have escaped the sage Haymarket, who feels that the police face more crime in progress (as seen on TV), thus need to be "better armed" than the intended victims. Common sense tells you that the police often arrive at the crime scene, well after the crime has been committed and the perp is long gone; yet, as you say, the victim does not have that distinct advantage.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #683
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,698

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    An excellent "cop out", as usual! The point that you failed to see is that the police protect "we the sheeple" from the same threats that we face. They normally encounter "crime in progress" only when it is reported to them by a citizen complaint (or alarm signal), via their dispatcher; in other words, they face the same threats as the "normal" people do (if they manage to arrive in time).
    Baloney. Worse. Yesterdays digested baloney now going down the porcelain swirl.

    Comparing the daily life of a regular civilian to that of a cop and the tools they need to do their job is simply the height of absurdity. I cannot think of one single time in my entire life where I needed a firearm to do my job and I am 63 years old. Not a one. To pretend otherwise that you or anybody else is some crime busting superhero is just a sad joke.

    Why can't you be truthful here? You and I both know the reason why so many on the right keep insisting that they need comparable weaponry as the police or military have. And you also know the reason you insist on it rings rather hollow with most Americans who sympathize not in the least with the paranoia that fuels it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #684
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The great lakes
    Last Seen
    06-12-13 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That little detail seems to have escaped the sage Haymarket, who feels that the police face more crime in progress (as seen on TV), thus need to be "better armed" than the intended victims. Common sense tells you that the police often arrive at the crime scene, well after the crime has been committed and the perp is long gone; yet, as you say, the victim does not have that distinct advantage.
    This is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
    Of course, that may explain why some believe we should rely on the police to protect us rather than allow us the means to do it ourselves.

  5. #685
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,551

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Baloney. Worse. Yesterdays digested baloney now going down the porcelain swirl.

    Comparing the daily life of a regular civilian to that of a cop and the tools they need to do their job is simply the height of absurdity. I cannot think of one single time in my entire life where I needed a firearm to do my job and I am 63 years old. Not a one. To pretend otherwise that you or anybody else is some crime busting superhero is just a sad joke.

    Why can't you be truthful here? You and I both know the reason why so many on the right keep insisting that they need comparable weaponry as the police or military have. And you also know the reason you insist on it rings rather hollow with most Americans who sympathize not in the least with the paranoia that fuels it.
    Many view a personal defense weapon much the same as insurance; you hope to never need it but waiting until after the fact it is too late. Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it. Is that paranoid? Perhaps, but I am 58 and only needed it once, so far, not job related unless you count the commute. It would have been handy twice, before that, but I was younger and in better physical shape then. You live your life your way, just don't mess with my rights to do the same.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #686
    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 haymarket View Post
    Baloney. Worse. Yesterdays digested baloney now going down the porcelain swirl.

    Comparing the daily life of a regular civilian to that of a cop and the tools they need to do their job is simply the height of absurdity. I cannot think of one single time in my entire life where I needed a firearm to do my job and I am 63 years old. Not a one. To pretend otherwise that you or anybody else is some crime busting superhero is just a sad joke.

    Why can't you be truthful here? You and I both know the reason why so many on the right keep insisting that they need comparable weaponry as the police or military have. And you also know the reason you insist on it rings rather hollow with most Americans who sympathize not in the least with the paranoia that fuels it.
    Actually, when it comes to that last part....it's specifically said in the Constitution that the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not the right saying it, it's the founding fathers.

    "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

  7. #687
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,698

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Many view a personal defense weapon much the same as insurance; you hope to never need it but waiting until after the fact it is too late. Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it. Is that paranoid? Perhaps, but I am 58 and only needed it once, so far, not job related unless you count the commute. It would have been handy twice, before that, but I was younger and in better physical shape then. You live your life your way, just don't mess with my rights to do the same.
    I am NOT messing with your right to defend yourself. Just because I tell you that you do not need the firepower of a cop of a solider does not mean I am denying you the right to defend yourself with a firearm.

    To pretend otherwise is part of the continual dishonesty which has created a wide chasm that separates the gun culture from everyone else.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #688
    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
    Actually, when it comes to that last part....it's specifically said in the Constitution that the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not the right saying it, it's the founding fathers.

    "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Except...this doesn't apply to non-militia members.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    ************************************************** ********

    The only Supreme Court decision to focus explicitly on the Second Amendment was United States v. Miller. [132] In that case, two men were accused of illegally transporting a weapon from one state to another in violation of the 1934 Firearms Act. In overruling the District Court's opinion that the law violated the Second Amendment, Justice McReynolds, writing for a unanimous Court, stated:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. [133] The Court referred to several sources when it defined the militia as "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' " [134] Inexplicably, some individual rights advocates trumpet Miller as support for their position. [135] One could claim that the definition of militia set forth by the Court and its subsequent discussion of the history of the militia demonstrates that the right to bear arms does not belong to the state. It is, however, disingenuous to claim that Miller supports anything more than the notion that a well-regulated militia, comprised of individuals, is the focus of the amendment.

    In the only two subsequent Supreme Court decisions that cite Miller in the Second Amendment context, the individual rights theory was dismissed. In Konigsberg v. State Bar, [136] Justice Harlan eviscerated any absolutist claim that the Second Amendment protects against gun control laws. Rejecting the contention that the First Amendment bars libel, slander, and misrepresentation claims because of its absolutist language, he wrote, "In this connection also [Page 511] compare the equally unqualified command of the second amendment: 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' And see United States v. Miller (cite omitted)." [137] In United States v. Lewis, [138] the Court went even further. Justice Blackmun writing for the Court about a law prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm stated:

    These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, (cite omitted) (The second amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.') [139] Many federal courts of appeal, some of which were also cited in Lewis, have used far stronger language in holding that the Second Amendment does not afford an individual the right to bear arms and have cited Miller to support their holdings. [140] Not one has ruled to the contrary.

    The only other tenable claim that may be made is that Miller protects an individual from laws restricting weapons, like assault weapons, that appear to have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia." According to one recent article analyzing the Second Amendment in a completely different context, "The [Miller] ruling appeared to be stuck to the physical surfaces of the particular gun in the case." [141] A case like Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, [142] in which the Seventh Circuit affirmed a local handgun ban, maintaining that "the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment" [143] because they have no relationship to a militia, says nothing about whether military-type weapons would or should be afforded that protection. One could claim that a military-[Page 512] type weapon would pass the test. Yet no federal court has ever interpreted Miller to apply only to the type of weapon rather than the individual's connection to a well-regulated militia. [144]

    United States v. Warin [145] in the Sixth Circuit and United States v. Oakes [146] in the Tenth Circuit both dealt directly with the issue of militia-related weapons. Both were challenges to 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), requiring registration of all machine guns--weapons that undoubtedly could be used in a militia as "weapons of war." Both plaintiffs also claimed that they were state militia members by virtue of the fact that they were "able bodied males." [147] In Warin, the court held "that there is no evidence that a submachine gun in the hands of an individual 'sedentary militia' member would have any, much less a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' " [148] In Oakes, the court wrote: "To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy." [149] The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari to hear the appeals.

    In Farmer v. Higgins, [150] a challenge to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, [151] which prohibits the transfer or possession of machine guns, was mounted in the Eleventh Circuit. At issue was a grandfather clause in the Act, which, overall, was far more draconian then the one challenged in Oakes and Warin. The court held that the Act prohibited private possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed prior to the enactment of the law. Although the court did not specifically address the Second Amendment, it did so indirectly in declaring say it considered "Farmer's remaining arguments ... to be without merit." [152] Here too, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Finally, California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act was [Page 513] challenged in the Eastern District of California on a number of grounds in Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van De Kamp. [153] The court affirmed the constitutionality of the statute, citing many of the cases discussed above. The court also rejected a privacy challenge, holding that possession of a weapon and one's right to self-defense were not privacy interests. [154] The Ninth Circuit affirmed without addressing the validity of the broad Second Amendment challenge. [155] Rather, citing Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Cruikshank, the court held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and consequently that the Second Amendment does not serve to protect individuals against any such state law. [156]

    Justice William O. Douglas summarized it well: "A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment," but the Second Amendment was simply "designed to keep alive the militia." [157]

    untitled
    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. #689
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,698

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Actually, when it comes to that last part....it's specifically said in the Constitution that the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not the right saying it, it's the founding fathers.

    "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    And if you look in dictionaries of the day you will find out that the word INFRINGE does NOT mean what the NRA and gun culture believe it means today.

    http://1828.mshaffer.com/

    Webster's 1828 dictionary


    infringe

    INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]

    1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
    2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
    3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
    In the day of the era of the Constitution , INFRINGE meant to break of contravene or destroy . As long as the government does NOT do that, you still have your right to keep and bear arms and it is not being INFRINGED.
    Last edited by haymarket; 12-22-12 at 06:14 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

  10. #690
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,698

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That little detail seems to have escaped the sage Haymarket, who feels that the police face more crime in progress (as seen on TV), thus need to be "better armed" than the intended victims. Common sense tells you that the police often arrive at the crime scene, well after the crime has been committed and the perp is long gone; yet, as you say, the victim does not have that distinct advantage.
    Whites statement that you seem to have embraced

    The victim is -always- at the scene of the crime.
    might appear to have the makings of a zippy one liner designed to make the right wing heart go pitter patter, but it is false. Not only are many victims NOT at the scene of the crime they don't even know a crime has occurred. Things can be stolen that you own without your knowing they are gone. Your credit cards can be accessed and you do not even know about it to later let alone not being there at the crime itself.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

Posting Permissions

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