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 18 of 71 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #171
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,443

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    From everything I've read:
    1. Assault weapons are owned by only a tiny fraction of the population.
    2. Assault weapons are involved in a tiny fraction of actual gun crimes.

    Why is so much money and energy spent on this? Is this just a big placebo where government acts like it's doing something but in reality it's just wasting everyone's time and money, pissing off the hobbyists who actually enjoy ARs, and essentially doing zip to protect the public? I would be embarassed as an anti-gun advocate if a renewed AR ban was the best they could come up with. Go shoot some. A pistol grip can be quite comfortable. It doesn't need a ****ing federal law against it.

  2. #172
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,443

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    What?From my understanding an "assault weapon" are stronger weapons and have more power than a standard rifle or battle rifle, have selective fire, and a discharge magazine. oh
    Oh no, don't discuss it if you haven't read it please!

    Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ....because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:


    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
    Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
    A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
    Detachable magazine.

  3. #173
    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
    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.
    Given the statement that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it stands to reason that the government may not prohibit militarily effective firearms. To do so would render the population incapable of forming a militia, subverting the reason for the federal prohibition in the first place.

  4. #174
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    No, you're missing the point. If the tool is irrelevant, then we never go outside, because there is danger outside of our plastic bubbles. My point is that trying to create equivalence between tools that can be used to kill in addition to their normal functions and tools whose normal and only function is killing is a false equivalence. That's actually my whole point.
    The tool is irrelevant because dead kids are still dead kids.And if it was about saving lives you would want restrictions on those things responsible for deaths just as you would guns.Its been pointed out more than once that guns have more than one function.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #175
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The tool is irrelevant because dead kids are still dead kids.And if it was about saving lives you would want restrictions on those things responsible for deaths just as you would guns.Its been pointed out more than once that guns have more than one function.
    Collecting and killing (in some form or another). Those are really the only two functions that guns have.

  6. #176
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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
    Arms are VERY clearly denoted back then as ANY sort of weapony, arms being short for the term Armements or implements of warfare. Cannons and fully armed and crewed ships of war were commonly owned by private individuals. Those were some of the most destructive implements known back then short of a wharehouse full of blackpowder which private individuals could also own. The 2nd makes NO distinction between any arms of any kind. The theory you and others use debases the amendment, making it functionaly toothless in increments. Thereby making the arguement with the gun grabbers moot as they will whitle away at what is and isnt allowed till eventually the amendment is pointless. The amendments were and are to any common man who can read quite clear. There is no wiggle room. If arms are to be limited it best be by amendment.

    On a side note why anyone would support the gutless pussies of the NRA is beyond me because they are the twits that helped start this mess in the first place by caving in back in 34. They have been caving ever since. I will honestly be surprised if they actually hold the line here, let alone push back. I seriously doubt those twits will anything of the sort.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  7. #177
    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 zstep18 View Post
    Collecting and killing (in some form or another). Those are really the only two functions that guns have.
    No, they really aren't the only two functions that guns have. Competition shooting, target shooting for pleasure, learning the disclipine and focus which shooting teaches, improving and increasing your skill and knowledge base, along with others. People who own guns aren't either collectors or killers. To be so narrow-minded, is to remain ignorant.
    "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

  8. #178
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Given the statement that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it stands to reason that the government may not prohibit militarily effective firearms. To do so would render the population incapable of forming a militia, subverting the reason for the federal prohibition in the first place.
    1 - I thought it was the contention of the right that the entire militia thing no longer had anything to do with the right to bear arms?

    2- Despite given ample opportunity, neither you nor anyone else has offered any evidence that the militia in the 21st century is anything other than a fiction on paper that does not exist in real life.

    3- Despite being asked several times, neither you nor anyone else can produce a list of what weapons any such militia would be required to bring with them - if any - let alone that the items you are advocating for are or would be on such a list.

    4- Our nation is not kept a free state by any fictional militia but rather by a professional armed forces for well over the past two centuries.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #179
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    No, they really aren't the only two functions that guns have. Competition shooting, target shooting for pleasure, learning the disclipine and focus which shooting teaches, improving and increasing your skill and knowledge base, along with others. People who own guns aren't either collectors or killers. To be so narrow-minded, is to remain ignorant.
    You're right. I forgot about sporting. I feel a little silly for that.

  10. #180
    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 zstep18 View Post
    You're right. I forgot about sporting. I feel a little silly for that.
    I have no idea if you shoot or not, but I highly recommend it. It's good for your outlook, your focus, and your mind. It's not the boogeyman that some will make it out to be. It's sort of like scuba diving in that it helps you overcome your fears, and make you more cognizant and mindful of both yourself, and your surroundings. If I were queen, everyone would own a gun, learn how to shoot it like an expert marksman, and learn how to take care of it like a prized possession.
    "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

Page 18 of 71 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... 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
  •