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 89 of 171 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199139 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #881
    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
    I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.

    Yes, some people scapegoat weapons. Some people hate guns and are anti-gun. Both ends of the spectrum has adherents. We need to involve the greater majority of people in the middle who I think believe that guns are part of America and people need them for a variety of reasons including
    self defense
    home protection
    sports
    hunting
    recreation

    But at the same time they are concerned about a nation where there now may be as many guns as people and there seems to be much negative side effects from their use - or abuse if your prefer.

    And I do think the issue of fighting the government so you need an armory is a legit issue that should be debated. Yes, I understand how we got here as a country. Yes, I understand that people had guns as a last resort against a tyrannical government. I also want it discussed and asked that with that in mind, do the American people believe that we should use that as the rationalization/reason/excuse to allow people to have high powered weaponry in our society or can we make some accommodation and compromise where we stand firmly behind ownership of some weapons and do not allow others as having no real purpose in our society?

    I think this needs a thorough and public discussion.



    And it needs to include what firearms should indeed be LEGAL.

    Like the implications or not - guns are different. I abuse liquor and I make an ass of myself and have to get my suit dry cleaned from vomit. I watch too much porn and I get horny and maybe a bit obnoxious. I abuse guns and people can and do die.
    While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

    What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?

  2. #882
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    How about all the 2nd Amendment advocates join a well regulated militia which controlled the weaponry?

    Have you forgotten well regulated militia?

    Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?

    How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated? Can this be interpreted to mean that the well regulated militia can own tanks, and fighter jets etc?
    Nothing but hyperbole.

    The second amendment was never meant to be just "a well regulated mammalia." "Shall not be infringed" was the key as the militia is the people...

    I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason

    The US Supreme Court agree's...

    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

    2008 and 2010. Hmmmm? Does not look outdated to me?

    As for the last part. The 2nd amendment covers small arms only. Explosives etc are covered by a completely different set of laws. This includes biological/Nuclear as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #883
    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
    I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.

    Yes, some people scapegoat weapons. Some people hate guns and are anti-gun. Both ends of the spectrum has adherents. We need to involve the greater majority of people in the middle who I think believe that guns are part of America and people need them for a variety of reasons including
    self defense
    home protection
    sports
    hunting
    recreation

    But at the same time they are concerned about a nation where there now may be as many guns as people and there seems to be much negative side effects from their use - or abuse if your prefer.

    And I do think the issue of fighting the government so you need an armory is a legit issue that should be debated. Yes, I understand how we got here as a country. Yes, I understand that people had guns as a last resort against a tyrannical government. I also want it discussed and asked that with that in mind, do the American people believe that we should use that as the rationalization/reason/excuse to allow people to have high powered weaponry in our society or can we make some accommodation and compromise where we stand firmly behind ownership of some weapons and do not allow others as having no real purpose in our society?

    I think this needs a thorough and public discussion.



    And it needs to include what firearms should indeed be LEGAL.

    Like the implications or not - guns are different. I abuse liquor and I make an ass of myself and have to get my suit dry cleaned from vomit. I watch too much porn and I get horny and maybe a bit obnoxious. I abuse guns and people can and do die.

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

    "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."

  4. #884
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,629

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

    What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?
    Cauton is needed here, as you, like the lefties, make no distictintion between a Constitutional right and a state issued privilege. That is a very key legal difference, as nowhere in our Constitution is "the right of the people to keep and drive vehicles shall not be infringed" stated.
    “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

  5. #885
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,910

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

    What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?
    Why is it that one tactic used by the gun culture on these sites is to almost always try to get the conversation steered to technical matters?

    Cars are indeed limited by law and not by technology.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #886
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,629

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Why is it that one tactic used by the gun culture on these sites is to almost always try to get the conversation steered to technical matters?

    Cars are indeed limited by law and not by technology.
    What was the AWB, if not a "technical" matter? The AWB was a list of features, of which a semi-automatice rifle could have no more than one and remain legal to produce.
    “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

  7. #887
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,910

    Re: Gun Control

    There is much wisdom in the collective intelligence of average Americans. I have long suspected that the American people want two things on this issue
    1- they want guns as part of individual protection and sporting activity and want them to be protected as a Constitutional right
    2- they want limits placed on weaponry that are based on common sense and what belongs or does not belong in a safe civilized society

    My local paper - the Detroit Free Press - has a large letters to the editor section today expressing just this feeling

    Letters: Find a safer balance on gun laws | Letters to the Editor | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

    I think it is a good snapshot of what average Americans believe and think about this issue.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #888
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    43

    Re: Gun Control

    i just think the government is overstepping here, relieved that Obama is in Hawai, at least he cant do too much damage to our country from there

  9. #889
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,629

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    There is much wisdom in the collective intelligence of average Americans. I have long suspected that the American people want two things on this issue
    1- they want guns as part of individual protection and sporting activity and want them to be protected as a Constitutional right
    2- they want limits placed on weaponry that are based on common sense and what belongs or does not belong in a safe civilized society

    My local paper - the Detroit Free Press - has a large letters to the editor section today expressing just this feeling

    Letters: Find a safer balance on gun laws | Letters to the Editor | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

    I think it is a good snapshot of what average Americans believe and think about this issue.
    Stop, take a deep breath, and consider for a moment what the use of an "assault weapon" really permitted in the few instances that they have been used to commit "mass murder". They allowed more unarmed, unprotected victim's lives to be taken in a shorter amount of time (due mainly to the total number of rounds available, magazine size x number of magazines). So in these few cases, in which the victim count exceeded 4, it was possible to use a firearm instead of a bomb, fire or other WMD to achieve a higher victim count (including the perp). Limitting the choice/availability of these legal "assault weapons" does not make them disappear nor change the motives/opportunities to commit mass murder (and suicide) significantly. We must remember that, in reality, criminal use of "assault weapons" is, and will remain, very, very rare. Most criminals do not intend to commit suicide, and prefer weapons that allow escape and reuse, not simply to achieve high victim counts (incuding themselves). Once we accept "reasonable" arms limits to mean the maximum number of rounds of ammo available, it will naturally be incrementally decreased until all criminal use ceases; in other words, it could be dropped to one round and "gun" crime would still exist (but, naturally, criminals would still ignore that one round limit).
    “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

  10. #890
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "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.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia."

    Read more: Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
    its fun seeing you quote scalia, he was wrong on that issue. and the supreme court has been hardly something worthy of complete devotion since they prostituted themselves during the time of FDR

Posting Permissions

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