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 21 of 71 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #201
    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
    Again, you dwell in the past of pre Constitution America or want us to engage in wild speculation about some future scenario where our armies and police are rendered impotent and its up to us to put down the remote control and fight the invading hordes from Uranus.

    Sorry. I do not make public policy based on realites from two and a quarter centuries ago or from George Lucas type imaginings. Lets concentrate on the reality before the USA in 2013 for once.
    If you think that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state that's your choice. Apparently the founders felt differently, which is why they took steps to ensure that the people would always be adequately armed with militarily effective weapons.

  2. #202
    Educator Paratrooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Al
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    888

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Its funny that it is the pro second ammendment people that are the ones accused of overreacting.

    There are hundreds of more likely ways to be killed in this country than from guns and yet liberals are focused like a laser on this one specific type. People get stabbed, people get beat with baseball bats, golf clubs, hammers, ice picks, brass knuckles, they get run over by cars, they get poisoned, choked, killed by home made explosives.....there are lots of ways someone can kill another person but this is their singular focus.

    It's called and agenda and we see it for what it is. It is simply liberals trying not to "let a crisis go to waste".

  3. #203
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,026

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    If you think that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state that's your choice. Apparently the founders felt differently, which is why they took steps to ensure that the people would always be adequately armed with militarily effective weapons.
    It is not what I think that is important. Nor is it what you think that is important. Reality has spoken loud and clear on this issue. Your militia - the contriavance that you need to employ to justify these weapons - is a convenient fiction that exists only on paper. That reality trumps belief.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #204
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratrooper View Post
    Its funny that it is the pro second ammendment people that are the ones accused of overreacting.

    There are hundreds of more likely ways to be killed in this country than from guns and yet liberals are focused like a laser on this one specific type. People get stabbed, people get beat with baseball bats, golf clubs, hammers, ice picks, brass knuckles, they get run over by cars, they get poisoned, choked, killed by home made explosives.....there are lots of ways someone can kill another person but this is their singular focus.

    It's called and agenda and we see it for what it is. It is simply liberals trying not to "let a crisis go to waste".
    True enough. And it's ugly, ugly, ugly.

  5. #205
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    It is not what I think that is important. Nor is it what you think that is important. Reality has spoken loud and clear on this issue. Your militia - the contriavance that you need to employ to justify these weapons - is a convenient fiction that exists only on paper. That reality trumps belief.



    All of our rights exist on paper, Haymarket. That's why we have a written Constitution.

  6. #206
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,881

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Again, you dwell in the past of pre Constitution America or want us to engage in wild speculation about some future scenario where our armies and police are rendered impotent and its up to us to put down the remote control and fight the invading hordes from Uranus.

    Sorry. I do not make public policy based on realites from two and a quarter centuries ago or from George Lucas type imaginings. Lets concentrate on the reality before the USA in 2013 for once.
    Snort. You do not make public policy for anything.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  7. #207
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    If you think that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state that's your choice. Apparently the founders felt differently, which is why they took steps to ensure that the people would always be adequately armed with militarily effective weapons.
    History according to Haymarket:


  8. #208
    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
    It is not what I think that is important. Nor is it what you think that is important. Reality has spoken loud and clear on this issue. Your militia - the contriavance that you need to employ to justify these weapons - is a convenient fiction that exists only on paper. That reality trumps belief.
    So do you therefore believe that the law should deny the people the possession of militarily effective firearms, such as are carried by the police and standing army?

  9. #209
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

    Would this be acceptable or not?
    A "compromise" on any right is a loss of that right, regardless of whether it's guns, speech, due process, search and seizure, etc. Not just no, but a very firm and uncompromising no.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  10. #210
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Federalist............. With all due respect, why is it that all your arguments on this issue are based either in the very distant past of well over two centuries ago or in a future which is speculative at best and absurd at worst? The real world we live in today and have lived in for the last two centuries never enters into your reasoning, your examples or your motivations.
    Because the desires and motivations of government have changed very little over the centuries.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 21 of 71 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •