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 97 of 171 FirstFirst ... 47879596979899107147 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 970 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #961
    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 H. Lee White View Post
    And that for the state to deny you the exercise of your right until such a time that the state determines you are not breaking the law in doing so is a form of prior restraint - which violates the Constitution.
    Absolutely!

  2. #962
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    We have nearly the highest homicide rate of the major industrial states, 4 times higher than Western Europe.
    I don't get what relationship you are trying to argue here. My comment that you quoted was conditions pre 1903. They have what to do with today. Did Western Europe have lower rates then? Would we have lower rates now if we brought back laws that existed prior to 1903. I believe we would, because history shows, conclusively, that higher gun ownership rates and broader carry and defense laws allow result in the lowest murder rates ever experienced in this country.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #963
    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
    You would be wrong, of course.
    Prove you are correct, link to your calling for increased spending on education, for instance.


    But regardless of the alleged lack of support for those programs, your plan of banning firearms won't work.
    Oh, well....you have somehow found my "plan"....and refuted it. Can you link to either?



    Tell me when you have something, first....
    First? good golly, molly..."first" has come and gone, I'm still waiting for anything countering what has already been written....not what you continue to imagine.....but what has actually been posted.
    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.

  4. #964
    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
    Uhm, no. There was no challenge for the reason I already stated.
    There was no challenge to the federal law because there is no Constitutional basis for a challenge.

    As noted by Conservative Justice Scalia:

    "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

    Further:

    :The U.S. Supreme Court declined without comment yesterday to hear a challenge to New Jersey's ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, letting stand a law seen by many as the toughest of its kind in the country.

    Assault-weapons ban withstands court challenge The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments against the strict N.J. law. Some issues, though, still can be raised. N.J.'s strict assault-weapons law to stand - Philly.com
    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

  5. #965
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,352

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    You can deny all history as far as I am concerned, you never posted any chronology or fact refuting what I posted.

    .

    Because I don't honestly need to refute you. The topic is irrelevant and a waste of time.

    Before the NRA had it's schism and became the radicalized entity it now is, there were so fewer of you who believe in their extremist philosophy of arming every US man, women and child. It used to be an organization focused on hunting, not creating members who feel they should be purchasing semi/full auto large clip military weapons. These are not hunting or marksmanship tools, they are designed to kill humans at a fast rate, that is what they were designed to do. They are not for personal protection as one can argue a revolver is, they were created for shock troops. And the argument that "we need to defend against a tyrannical govt" is just hogwash, US military weaponry far exceeds what you have, and you just are sliding down the slope if you argue you need to match them.
    This is all radicalist garbage. Want you know how I know?

    There is no seriousness in your argument, this is just a bunch of white guys with inadequacies filling a void.

    You are not threatened, you are the threat
    That ridiculoust statement right there. Do you have a problem with white people? You know that the NRA isn't a racist organization right? There are no links beyond that thing you saw in the Michael Moore cartoon. Way to go on that.

    CLEARLY you have no concept of firearms and are quoting EXACTLY what the media says, and EXACTLY what your party line says. How do I know this?

    who feel they should be purchasing semi/full auto large clip military weapons
    They aren't targeting "military weapons" only. They are targeting semi automatic weapons in general. That would be Ruger, Mossberg, Savage, Remington, and basically ANYONE else who makes a .22 that can hold more than 10 rounds. Yes that is JUST the .22 caliber. Anyone else who makes a semi-automatic rifle that has a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds WILL come under attack as well. You say it is for "killing people" and that is incredibily naive. The shooter determines the purpose of the weapon. The idiotic statement that "the gun is for killing people" is so clearly undereducated that I actually laughed when I read it. You do know that the BULLET has more bearing on the purpose of a firearm than the gun itself? If I load it up with cheap FMJ rounds what do you think I am doing? Shooting people? No I am targeting...paper targets. I use hollow points or buckshot if I am loading for self defense. You can make a case for ammunition, but every man or woman on this forum who has regular trigger time knows that bullets make a bigger difference than the rifle itself. Not to mention I have NEVER seen these ARs fire without human interaction. That means that these rifles coming under the threat of banishment...still need to be aimed. Who does that? The rifle doesn't have an autoaim like your video game. It has to be pointed. That means that the entire solution to the problem you are FREAKING OUT over is NOT in the object. It is in the person pointing it.

    All that said. This "ban" on military rifles is stupid. Why? Because it will do nothing more than cosmeticly attack. Do you know why your view and the view of people like Catwaba or Capster is a joke? Because THIS:

    Gun Control-fe027d94ce4a-jpg

    is considered "deadlier" than this:

    Gun Control-cz_550_amer-jpg

    In a competition of ability...I take the 2nd and you take the first...do you realize that you could only win in sheer volume of wasted ammo with the first rifle? I bet you still think the first is more lethal don't you?

    this is just a bunch of white guys with inadequacies filling a void.
    Who told you that? That is HILARIOUS!!! Considering the fact that I am in the best shape of my life, have a wonderful sex life, and I am on track for a very bright future? Lol.

    You are not threatened
    I know. My 870 and 9mm says so.

    you are the threat.
    Actually between you and me...I am the least likely to committ a violent act. That is of course because I don't see firearms as ONLY for murder. I would be afraid of what you would do if you owned a firearm. You don't properly understand their usage. Maybe we should just ban you? After all I am looking to become an instructor, and I have a safety record like you wouldn't believe.
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  6. #966
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,352

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That is because there is no Constitutional basis for a challenge in the USSC. They let the lower courts ruling against the challenge stand.
    You are still avoiding what I asked you earlier. I am wondering why?

    What makes this:

    Gun Control-display__84353-1328577066-1280-1280-jpg

    deadlier than this:

    Gun Control-501px-postbanar15a2standard-jpg
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  7. #967
    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 DVSentinel View Post
    I don't get what relationship you are trying to argue here. My comment that you quoted was conditions pre 1903. They have what to do with today. Did Western Europe have lower rates then? Would we have lower rates now if we brought back laws that existed prior to 1903. I believe we would, because history shows, conclusively, that higher gun ownership rates and broader carry and defense laws allow result in the lowest murder rates ever experienced in this country.
    actually, you are completely wrong, the number of guns per capita is on the decline in the US and homicide rates have declined from the "crack" days of the '90's. There are MANY studies also showing that as gun ownership declines so does the homicide rate.
    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.

  8. #968
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,572

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    actually, you are completely wrong, the number of guns per capita is on the decline in the US and homicide rates have declined from the "crack" days of the '90's. There are MANY studies also showing that as gun ownership declines so does the homicide rate.
    Correlation does not imply causality.
    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.

  9. #969
    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 stonewall50 View Post
    You are still avoiding what I asked you earlier. I am wondering why?

    What makes this:

    Gun Control-display__84353-1328577066-1280-1280-jpg

    deadlier than this:

    Gun Control-501px-postbanar15a2standard-jpg


    The high capacity magazine allows higher death counts by the shooter.
    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

  10. #970
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,572

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    Gun Control-fe027d94ce4a-jpg

    is considered "deadlier" than this:

    Gun Control-cz_550_amer-jpg

    In a competition of ability...I take the 2nd and you take the first...do you realize that you could only win in sheer volume of wasted ammo with the first rifle? I bet you still think the first is more lethal don't you?
    I would take the first in any of the following situations:
    1. there were grenades for the launcher
    2. it was close quarters combat
    3. we're fighting at night (it seems to be a night vision scope)
    4. there were less than 400 meters between us.

    Otherwise I'd take the second. The second is slow but very accurate long range. So it's very situation dependent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The high capacity magazine allows higher death counts by the shooter.
    I can reload an M4 in about 2 seconds flat, so I'm not sure how that could be true.
    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
  •