View Poll Results: Would you comply with a gun ban?

Voters
89. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I would.

    15 16.85%
  • No, I would not.

    74 83.15%
Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 321

Thread: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

  1. #141
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    LOL that is just priceless from a guy whose main tactic on guns in insinuating gun owners are silly and don't need guns and refuses to take solid stands on the issues
    Live never done that. I have said that on this forum silly arguments have been presented and some seem to be over scared. I can only react to the arguments your side makes. And I have made my position clear. At don't support a ban on all guns, but have no problem with. Semi automatic ban. What don't you understand?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #142
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,359

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    unlikely they wood have rotten that amendment today.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    your tactic for a week argument on your art.
    Haha, your spell corrector is pwning you.

  3. #143
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Live never done that. I have said that on this forum silly arguments have been presented and some seem to be over scared. I can only react to the arguments your side makes. And I have made my position clear. At don't support a ban on all guns, but have no problem with. Semi automatic ban. What don't you understand?
    that's a cowardly position-to say you don't have a problem with a major infringement on rights but you refuse to support it

  4. #144
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that's a cowardly position-to say you don't have a problem with a major infringement on rights but you refuse to support it
    You described ambivalence, not cowardice.

  5. #145
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    you cannot repeal any of the BOR...rights are unalienable..
    Uhhh amendments in the constitution and the BOR can be repealed.. This has been done before..


  6. #146
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that's a cowardly position-to say you don't have a problem with a major infringement on rights but you refuse to support it
    I don't consider it a major infringement. Just because you do doesn't make it one. I consider it so minor as to not warrant either support nor protest.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #147
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    You described ambivalence, not cowardice.
    Surprisingly much more accurate than he was.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #148
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No. I think you mistake the right as absolute when it isn't. Regulations or limitations have long since been deemed acceptable, and much of the original rational for the amendment no longer applies. We no longer need a citizen militia need to call on for time f war. Add to the advancement in technology, the modern army, and it s unlikely they wood have rotten that amendment today.
    Two problems with your "I doubt" or "you mistake" theory of Constitutional law.

    The reason for an armed citizenry was to be free of enslavement by ANY gov't run amok, not simply a foreign one. Many were afraid of even our own fledgling federal gov't, and that was what sprked the notion of adding a bill of rights, to limit the federal (and state) gov't to grow too powerful. These amendments are all limits on gov't power; that was their entire purpose.

    Regulations and limitations to our Constitutional, individual rights must pass the "strict scutiny" test as being the least restrictive method of enforcing a "compelling state interest". They are not simply anything goes powers, up to restricting the right of thea last "qualified" priavet citizen. To assert that simply because something is abused by criminals, means that it should be regulated or banned for all is insane. With more people killed by hammers than any rifle (much less only the evil, short, black, scary ones) it makes no sense to ban or greatly restrict their sale or transport (over that of hammers).
    “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

  9. #149
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Uhhh amendments in the constitution and the BOR can be repealed.. This has been done before..

    no... the BOR has never been amended, the BOR, was written and passed after the u.s. Constitution, in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

    rights are unalienable.....they cannot be repealed.

    a Constitution amendment to the Constitution is only in the hands of governments because they cast the votes, rights are not in the hands of government, because they do not grants rights...they only secure rights

  10. #150
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Two problems with your "I doubt" theory of Constitutional law.

    The reason for an armed citizenry was to be free of enslavement by ANY gov't run amok, not simply a foreign one. Many were afraid of even our own fledgling federal gov't, and that was what sprked the notion of adding a bill of rights, to limit the federal (and state) gov't to grow too powerful. These amendments are all limits on gov't power; that was their entire purpose.

    Regulations and limitations to our Constitutional, individual rights must pass the "strict scutiny" test as being the least restrictive method of enforcing a "compelling state interest". They are not simply anything goes powers, up to restricting the right of thea last "qualified" priavet citizen. To assert that simply because something is abused by criminals, means that it should be regulated or banned for all is insane. With more people killed by hammers than any rifle (much less only the evil, short, black, scary ones) it makes no sense to ban or greatly restrict their sale or transport (over that of hammers).
    While I think you have a lot of the thought essentially correct, the amendment itself was not meant to oppose us government.

    Nor would I frame the state interest argument as you do. But you are doing the better job of arguing.

    If I would take the state side of the interest argument, I would focus on the problem with too many semi automatics available and the danger to both officials and citizens. The LA shoot out some years ago comes to mind as an example of the problem.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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