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 16 of 71 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #151
    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
    Nor do I deny the possibility of three inch flaming monkeys playing professional basketball under the surface of Uranus sometime in the future. I will not however formulate current public policy around that sort of speculation.
    Agreed. Nobody knows when exactly when or whether the American people will need to assemble themselves into a well regulated militia again, but we do know for sure that a militia is necessary to security of a free state. That's why the founders require that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people don't have militarily effective weapons, then they can't very well act as a well regulated militia now, can they?

  2. #152
    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
    In this case it means that you no longer can exercise the right.
    Or that your ability to exercise that right is hindered in some way.

  3. #153
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    In this case it means that you no longer can exercise the right.
    any infringement means you can no longer exercise your rights as the constitution intended. and a proper and honest interpretation of the second amendment would prohibit that

  4. #154
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    any infringement means you can no longer exercise your rights as the constitution intended. and a proper and honest interpretation of the second amendment would prohibit that
    The Constitution does not say what it intends to any degree of certainty other than the prefacing remarks about the necessity of a militia and of course, the Preamble. . It only says that you have the right to exercise and the government cannot prevent you from doing so. And if you are doing so.... no state of being INFRINGED exists.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #155
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    Which is how I read it. And quite frankly to read it ANY other way, including Turtledudes is a complete bastardization rendering the amendment absolutely meaningless. Its one of the reasons I dont support the NRA and think they are a bunch of pussies. All this started with the compromise on free speach. Its either free or its not. That includes yelling fire in a theature. You compromise on one right and then you compromise on all the rest.

    both of you didn't understand what I was saying. I was saying theoretically people of good intentions can argue whether certain military weapons are "ORDNANCE" or ARTILLERY rather than arms even though modern weapons allow an individual to deploy a device that has the equivalent power of a crew served artillery piece circa 1790 or 1917 HOWEVER, there is absolutely no legitimate argument that common CIVILIAN police weapons come anywhere close to whatever honest line one wants to draw concerning what military weapons are protected and what are not

  6. #156
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The Constitution does not say what it intends to any degree of certainty other than the prefacing remarks about the necessity of a militia and of course, the Preamble. . It only says that you have the right to exercise and the government cannot prevent you from doing so. And if you are doing so.... no state of being INFRINGED exists.
    For that we look to the framer's writings, and they are all clear and specific on the matter of the Second. Their take on the Second and why they ratified it has been posted here before a few times.

  7. #157
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    If you are exercising the right, then by its very nature you cannot have the right violated or broken or destroyed. One cannot have their right INFRINGED if one also is enjoying the same right. One cancels out the other. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other. Its like being pregnant: you either are or are not.
    that is as silly as saying if a Jew is told he can attend a Mass, his right to practice religion is not destroyed even if his Jewish faith is outlawed

  8. #158
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    For that we look to the framer's writings, and they are all clear and specific on the matter of the Second. Their take on the Second and why they ratified it has been posted here before a few times.
    It sure would be nice if we could do that. Sadly and unfortunately we have the very real problem that silence is the loudest message from all but a few. And it certainly would be be right nor fair to judge the motivations or intent of many by the voice of the few that have survived.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  9. #159
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that is as silly as saying if a Jew is told he can attend a Mass, his right to practice religion is not destroyed even if his Jewish faith is outlawed
    This has nothing to do with being a Jew or attending mass in a Catholic Church. The comparison is irrelevant.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  10. #160
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    This has nothing to do with being a Jew or attending mass in a Catholic Church. The comparison is irrelevant.
    opinion noted not shared. telling me I cannot own a gun that the second amendment says I can because I already own a different kind of gun is the same thing. Just as if I own a book that the left hates "Atlas Shrugs" and they try to ban "The Fountainhead" and claim I can already enjoy reading Rand and thus my rights are intact

    if I wanted to buy a different gun every day of the year, the first day I am told NO my rights have been impermissibly and unconstitutionally violated

Page 16 of 71 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... 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
  •