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 16 of 33 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 321

Thread: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

  1. #151
    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
    no... the BOR has never been amended,
    I mean the consitution has

    the BOR, was written and passed after the u.s. Constitution, in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
    Ok...


    rights are unalienable.....they cannot be repealed.
    No they are not. The only unalienable rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    The bill of rights can be amended.. It very much can. Where does it say we cannot?
    It will take 2/3 both of the house and senate.


  2. #152
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,809

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    those were fully automatic weapons

  3. #153
    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
    those were fully automatic weapons
    I know.

    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.

  4. #154
    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
    I mean the consitution has


    Ok...



    No they are not. The only unalienable rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    The bill of rights can be amended.. It very much can. Where does it say we cannot?
    It will take 2/3 both of the house and senate.

    what does ----->unalienable<------- mean to you?

    the BOR was not in existence when the constitution was written or passed.

    rights do not come from government, we have natural rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which translates into property----from constitutional teachers

    how can government take rights away when they are not the giver of them?

  5. #155
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,702

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    The LA shootout, of many years ago, pointed out that criminals could easily out gun "conventional" police units, thus we have SWAT and "tactical response" teams in place for these rare, yet nasty, situations. The use of body armor and "heavy" guns by criminals is still quite rare, it took no such thing to salughter little school children herded into a gym.

    The law changes now sought have NOTHING to do with a specific crime, and have EVERYTHING to do with increasing gov't control and reducing individual rights. To assert that our federal gov't can declare itself in charge based upon the failure of a state/local gov't to adequately perform a police function is INSANE.

    Just what federal law/power do you assert is involved in private sales of guns WITHIN the boundaries of a state? Federal law states that one may not sell/transfer a firearm OUTSIDE of your state or to a person known (or that may be reasonably expected) to be felon or insane. That does not mean that the federal gov't can now mandate that ALL sales of guns/ammo are under complete federal control or that they can impose a $50 tax on a gun/ammo "transfer".

    At some point that "reasonable restriction" clearly becomes an "infringement"; note that for voting that "point" is said (by many liberals) to be simply requiring a valid, state issued, photo ID (one time cost of about $25, or less, every 4 to 6 years).
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 01-15-13 at 12:10 AM.
    “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. #156
    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
    what does ----->unalienable<------- mean to you?
    Where does it say that the bill of rights are unalienable?


    the BOR was not in existence when the constitution was written or passed.
    Its still considered part of the constitution.


    rights do not come from government, we have natural rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
    THOSE ARE THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!

    which translates into property----from constitutional teachers
    Huge debate over this but ok


    how can government take rights away when they are not the giver of them?
    Read the constitution can amend the constitution! Its in the freaking constitution in which the BOR is apart of, they didnt say "oh and you can amend everything here, oh except the BOR".


  7. #157
    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
    The LA shootout, of many years ago, pointed out that criminals could easily out gun "conventional" police units, thus we have SWAT and "tactical response" teams in place for these rare, yet nasty, situations. The use of body armor and "heavy" guns by criminals is still quite rare, it took no such thing to salughter little school children herded into a gym.

    The law changes now sought have NOTHING to do with a specific crime, and have EVERYTHING to do with increasing gov't control and reducing individual rights. To assert that our federal gov't can declare itself in charge based upon the failure of a state/local gov't to adequately perform a police function is INSANE.

    Just what federal law/power do you assert is involved in private sales of guns WITHIN the boundaries of a state? Federal law states that one may not sell/transfer a firearm OUTSIDE of your state or to a person known (or that may be reasonably expected) to be felon or insane. That does not mean that the federal gov't can now mandate that ALL sales of guns/ammo are under complete federal control or that they can impose a $50 tax on a gun/ammo "transfer".

    At some point that "reasonable restriction" clearly becomes an "infringement"; note that for voting that "point" is said (by many liberals) to be simply requiring a valid, state issued, photo ID (one time cost of about $25, or less, every 4 to 6 years).
    I ute disagree. I don't think it is that well thoughtful. By and large, police support UHC bans because of the risks they present. Most of the public neither as nor desires such weapons. So, when such tragedies happen, going back to a previous, largely accepted ban s politically expedient. Has wide spread support. And does help lessen the risk for police officers(not do away with it).

    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. #158
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,702

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I ute disagree. I don't think it is that well thoughtful. By and large, police support UHC bans because of the risks they present. Most of the public neither as nor desires such weapons. So, when such tragedies happen, going back to a previous, largely accepted ban s politically expedient. Has wide spread support. And does help lessen the risk for police officers(not do away with it).
    There are more murders committed with hammers than all rifles. Widespread support or not, you have a Constitutional right to keep and bear a hammer, yet we are not seeking hammer control (since too many "good guys" like them) only trying to limit the type (cosmetically) of a rifle that may be (made new) after some future date. The ban does not address any caliber, firing rate or any balistic property of the "AW", only the number of rounds in a single (exchangable) magazine, which is silly at best. It also made a magazine capacity law that is unenforcable, since nobody can discern when a magazine was made (or extended) to hold more than 10 rounds. Limitting the "new sale" of anything is useless, as we have seen with cocaine, heroin, meth and marijuana. Almost any moron with a welding rig, sheet metal and a spring can make a 30 round magazine, and I doubt that even CSI can tell you when it was made, or by whom. Get real!
    “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. #159
    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
    There are more murders committed with hammers than all rifles. Widespread support or not, you have a Constitutional right to keep and bear a hammer, yet we are not seeking hammer control (since too many "good guys" like them) only trying to limit the type (cosmetically) of a rifle that may be (made new) after some future date. The ban does not address any caliber, firing rate or any balistic property of the "AW", only the number of rounds in a single (exchangable) magazine, which is silly at best. It also made a magazine capacity law that is unenforcable, since nobody can discern when a magazine was made (or extended) to hold more than 10 rounds. Limitting the "new sale" of anything is useless, as we have seen with cocaine, heroin, meth and marijuana. Almost any moron with a welding rig, sheet metal and a spring can make a 30 round magazine, and I doubt that even CSI can tell you when it was made, or by whom. Get real!
    I don't believe that. And they'd have stopped a hammer wielder at the school, in LA they would have ended that quick, so in the context of the argument I laid out, hammer murderers are not a concern. An there I zero commitment in the country to make the sale of everything imaginable legal. We have and will continue to have restrictions.

    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.

  10. #160
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,702

    Re: Would You Give Up Your Guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't believe that. And they'd have stopped a hammer wielder at the school, in LA they would have ended that quick, so in the context of the argument I laid out, hammer murderers are not a concern. An there I zero commitment in the country to make the sale of everything imaginable legal. We have and will continue to have restrictions.
    Suppose the the CT shooter had access to only 10, 10-round magazines (along with the other two guns he had), he still could have herded plenty of little kids into a school gym and executed them. An elementary school kid, or even an unarmed teacher, is not going to disarm/disable a maniac with ANY type of gun in the seconds it takes to drop/swap a magazine. Even less likely if they have a backup gun as well.

    Having an added federal gun ban violation charge to a mass murder is not going to make ANY difference. Placing a no stealing allowed sign does not deter burglars. Placing a gun free zone sign on a school does not stop mass murderers and selling no more scary black rifles is not going to either. Criminals do not obey laws, its just not in their nature. Do you seriously think that federally baning recreational drugs made them less available? I don't believe that!
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 01-15-13 at 12:53 AM.
    “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

Page 16 of 33 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •