View Poll Results: Would this compromise be acceptable?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. This isnít perfect, but no compromise is.

    12 12.90%
  • No. I donít mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    13 13.98%
  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    61 65.59%
  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    4 4.30%
  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    3 3.23%
Page 14 of 71 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You do realize that it happened BEFORE the Constitution was written and adopted?

    And you do also realize it happened before the Second Amendment was written?
    Yes, I know when the Battles of Lexington and Concord occurred.

    So again, do you have recent examples of the militia being called up?
    No.

    And for those examples could you please include the list of items that each member was ordered to bring with them? Otherwise, your claim that people needs these weapons for possible militia call up is just engaging in fiction.
    Hm, so the American people have needed to form themselves into militias before, but you somehow conclude that they never will have to ever do so again.

    Are you sure you're a history teacher?

  2. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    because it is an important part of the discussion here.
    And it's important because...?

    And now my turn ...... and you feel you have to ask these pointless questions to me because.......?
    Because I'm trying to understand why it is you spend so much time arguing that citizens don't need to carry the same firearms as civilian police officers, yet continue to claim that you're not interested in the subject.

  3. #133
    Sage

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

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Yes, I know when the Battles of Lexington and Concord occurred.



    No.



    Hm, so the American people have needed to form themselves into militias before, but you somehow conclude that they never will have to ever do so again.

    Are you sure you're a history teacher?
    Thank you for admitting you have no examples of this being done with the USA under the Constitution.

    And yes, we are still under the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation as was the case in the time period you pointed out.

    Consider yourself educated on this issue by a history teacher.

    and for your information, there have indeed been militia bodies in action over the last 200 years. But I will leave it to you to discover them and explain their relevance to the 21st century and the issue of why you need certain firearms. It is only fair since that is your argument and not mine.
    Last edited by haymarket; 01-15-13 at 01:10 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

  4. #134
    Sage

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

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    And it's important because...?



    Because I'm trying to understand why it is you spend so much time arguing that citizens don't need to carry the same firearms as civilian police officers, yet continue to claim that you're not interested in the subject.
    Could you please quote where I stated I was not interested in "the subject" (what ever that term may mean)?

    I strongly suspect your "understanding" has nothing at all to do with these questions. But that is just my impression from repeated contact of this type in previous threads.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  5. #135
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    All one has to do is to then know the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used in the era of history at the time of the adoption of the Amendment to know that the Second Amendment is not at all what the gun lobby paints it to be.
    This is the definition of infringed in the 1780's. I'm not sure why you repeatedly insist otherwise, except that it fits your own agenda.

    From a complete dictionary of the English language, by Thomas Sheridan:

    Attachment 67140882
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Thank you for admitting you have no examples of this being done with the USA under the Constitution.

    And yes, we are still under the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation as was the case in the time period you pointed out.

    Consider yourself educated on this issue by a history teacher.
    And thank you for not attempting to deny the possibility that the people may need to form themselves into a militia in the future.

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Could you please quote where I stated I was not interested in "the subject" (what ever that term may mean)?
    My apologies for misunderstanding. So you ARE interested in the subject?

  8. #138
    Demented Lycanthropist
    wolfman24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    East Waboo USA
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 01:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Fine by me at least its a start.
    "Those who do not learn from history and condemned to relive it".

    "There are those who will debate the necessity of wilderness, I will not, either you know it in your bones or you are very very old". Aldo Leopold - Sand County Almanac

  9. #139
    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: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfman24 View Post
    Fine by me at least its a start.
    ah the incrementalist approach to banning rears its head again

  10. #140
    Sage

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

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    This is the definition of infringed in the 1780's. I'm not sure why you repeatedly insist otherwise, except that it fits your own agenda.

    From a complete dictionary of the English language, by Thomas Sheridan:

    Attachment 67140882
    Exactly. The right must be destroyed or broken or violate or hindered to the extent that it is destroyed or broken. Just asI have been insisting all along and just like the 1828 Websters agrees with that has been posted here many times.

    and here it is again.... please note that the hinder part is LITTLE USED and thus not nearly as important as the other more definitive descriptions.


    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.]
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

Page 14 of 71 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... 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
  •