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 24 of 71 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #231
    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 DaveFagan View Post
    I voted "yes" in the poll. I think the Citizens owning lots of guns reminds the gov't that the people are armed. I think everyone should have a gun or two or three, but I really can't justify the 100 round clips. There is always the possibility that as Marijuana gets more legal that we will have to find another way to fill those Corporate owned and operated jails. Lots of guns leaves lots of room for prosecutions and a steady flow of inmates. Never ignore the possibility of another agenda as the driving force behind gov't. I'm not discussing conspiracy here but good business for profit practices that are the foundations of our current "Corporatism," and if I meant Capitalism I would have used that word.
    that is one of the loonier things on this subject I have read

  2. #232
    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"

    Liberal idea of "compromise"

    "Give me your lunch money or I'll smash your face."

    See doesn't a compromise require that both parties leave the table satisfied? All I'm seeing here pro second ammendment people leaving the table with less and less each time this debate comes up.

    We can't have explosives.
    We can't have automatic weapons.
    We have background checks.
    We have permits.
    We banned "scary" guns and now seem planning to do so again.

    What have we got in return? Basically "Just be glad we don't take all guns away"

  3. #233
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    No one Ingres anything. There's just not a lot of people so silly as to overreact as gun folks are.
    The anti-2nd amendment side is trying to ban so called high capacity magazines, and so called assault weapons because of the rare mass shootings and its the pro-2nd amendment side that is overreacting?
    "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

  4. #234
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The anti-2nd amendment side is trying to ban so called high capacity magazines, and so called assault weapons because of the rare mass shootings and its the pro-2nd amendment side that is overreacting?
    Exactly. This restriction is a minor one. And too many make a leap from a minor restriction to banning all guns, to not being able to defend yourself, to killing legislators. It is extreme overreaction.

    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.

  5. #235
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,925

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratrooper View Post
    Liberal idea of "compromise"

    "Give me your lunch money or I'll smash your face."

    See doesn't a compromise require that both parties leave the table satisfied? All I'm seeing here pro second ammendment people leaving the table with less and less each time this debate comes up.

    We can't have explosives.
    We can't have automatic weapons.
    We have background checks.
    We have permits.
    We banned "scary" guns and now seem planning to do so again.

    What have we got in return? Basically "Just be glad we don't take all guns away"
    I can understand how you feel that way since it has pretty much been all your way for so long now.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  6. #236
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    Exactly. This restriction is a minor one.
    These restrictions are not minor.

    And too many make a leap from a minor restriction to banning all guns, to not being able to defend yourself, to killing legislators. It is extreme overreaction.
    Anti-2nd amendment loons do work in baby steps,so its not an extreme overreaction. If anything is an extreme overreaction its the anti-2nd amendment side trying to ban so called assault weapons and so called high capacity magazines over a handful of mass shootings doesn't justify infringing on the rights of millions of Americans,especially when only handful of weapons in those shootings were not so called assault weapons or so called high capacity magazines.
    "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

  7. #237
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    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?
    Only with a prevention of the insane AND semi-insane from owning any kind of weapons.....along with 100% checks.

    After that a short word on todays society..
    We are wrongly striving for "perfection".
    This is no good...
    We keep "raising the bar"....lets cool it ....lets be realistic.....sensitive
    I agree with and buy this compromise, not perfect, but what/who is ?

  8. #238
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratrooper View Post
    Liberal idea of "compromise"

    "Give me your lunch money or I'll smash your face."

    See doesn't a compromise require that both parties leave the table satisfied? All I'm seeing here pro second amendment people leaving the table with less and less each time this debate comes up.

    We can't have explosives.And what are you going to do with these - blow up little children after murdering them ?....NO, I do not need explosives, you do not need them !
    We can't have automatic weapons. And what do you need these for ? See above...
    We have background checks. These are partial, weak, and not enforced....no teeth.
    We have permits.Did our mass-murderer have one ?
    We banned "scary" guns and now seem planning to do so again. See the automatic response

    What have we got in return? Americans are still the best armed, both military, police and citizens....what MORE do you want.. Basically "Just be glad we don't take all guns away"
    I suspect that you NRA members are a bunch of misanthropes.

  9. #239
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Hard to exactly say, I'll bet that 1/4 of 1/2 of the people do NOT want decent gun controls....maybe this should go to a type of national referendum.
    The 25% approximate the tea bagging conservatives.
    Most true Republicans and Democrats favor the prevention of the insane from owning guns..
    On this forum, the NRA is well represented..
    The "gun-haters" have no such dedicated lobbying power.
    And, its only the liberal extremists who wish to have no guns...a small minority...

  10. #240
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    These restrictions are not minor.
    There is certainly a bit of subjectivity to the word minor, so I'll explain why i use the word minor. A vast majority of people will never consider owning the types of weapons being mentioned. We are talking about a small minority of people. The guns talked about will not prevent people from owning guns, people will still be able to hunt, protect themselves, and do nearly any kind of sport shooting. In that context, it really is minor.

    Anti-2nd amendment loons do work in baby steps,so its not an extreme overreaction. If anything is an extreme overreaction its the anti-2nd amendment side trying to ban so called assault weapons and so called high capacity magazines over a handful of mass shootings doesn't justify infringing on the rights of millions of Americans,especially when only handful of weapons in those shootings were not so called assault weapons or so called high capacity magazines.
    It's a minor step, and won't solve all problems. But it does have the effect of an action taken. And there is a safety issue that is real, and mostly supported by police and other such professionals. So, it seems the most reasonable option available.

    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.

Page 24 of 71 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •