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 25 of 71 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #241
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    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?
    That is a policy question for the duly elected representatives of the people. There certainly is no Constitutional right to have equal weapons with police and soldiers in the army.
    So let me see if I've got this straight. For two days, you've be arguing against the people having the same firearms as the police and standing army, primarily based upon your opinion that there is no need for a militia composed of the American people.

    And after all the effort you've put into these posts, you mean to tell me that you don't care after all.

    You seriously expect us all to believe that you have absolutely no opinion as to whether the population should be allowed to carry the same firearms as the police and standing army. You want us all to believe that you've just been arguing against it for the last two day because....you really don't care.

    Umm... yeah. Okay, I'm sure everyone else here believes you just as much as I do, which is to say not one bit.

  2. #242
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,935

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    So let me see if I've got this straight. For two days, you've be arguing against the people having the same firearms as the police and standing army, primarily based upon your opinion that there is no need for a militia composed of the American people.

    And after all the effort you've put into these posts, you mean to tell me that you don't care after all.

    You seriously expect us all to believe that you have absolutely no opinion as to whether the population should be allowed to carry the same firearms as the police and standing army. You want us all to believe that you've just been arguing against it for the last two day because....you really don't care.

    Umm... yeah. Okay, I'm sure everyone else here believes you just as much as I do, which is to say not one bit.
    All I have said is that there is no right under the Second Amendment for anyone to claim that they have a right to have the same level of weaponry as a police officer or soldier.

    I have no idea what all this CARING nonsense is about.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  3. #243
    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"

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    I suspect that you NRA members are a bunch of misanthropes.
    What *you* think I need is irrelevant. Some people may think I don't need a 300hp 4x4 truck, some people may think I dont need a car that can do 180mph, doesn't matter. As long as I am and continue to be a law abiding citizen, why should I be prevented from having such weapons.

    It is liberal "Nannystate" thinking that simply having such a gun in your hand will cause an overwhelming urge to go on a rampage. Amazingly enough I have been trained, operated, and train others in the use of these weapons and we have managed to control ourselves.

    Do I think everyone should be running around with machine guns and c4 strapped to them? Ofcourse not but I don't feel that just because you think someone doesn't need them is sufficient reason to ban them. There are books out there that can show you how to make a device that is just as deadly with ingredients you can buy from Walmart.

  4. #244
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    I can't really grasp all the objection to the current weapons proposals. What the hell, the massacres that have occurred require some kind of response. Politicians seldom initiate solutions in our current environment of partisan divide. OTOH, they are trapped into having to do something and we are in the middle of the experience. Keerist, I'm delighted that the proposals are as minor as they are. Knee jerk overrreaction was my fear and the proposals are instead relatively minor. Great. As far as the NRA is concerned, screw them. They've become the voice of the radical right.

  5. #245
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Does the phrase from Lincoln "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" mean anything to you?
    Yeah, does Washington's quote "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" mean anything to you?

    How about Thomas Jefferson's quote "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."?

    How about "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."?

    Or George Masons': "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

    Or Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

    Alexander Hamilton: "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

    Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."

    Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."





    The Founders were pretty clear on the threat that government poses to the liberties of the citizenry, and the need to retain the ability to overthrow said government by force of arms.

  6. #246
    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
    All I have said is that there is no right under the Second Amendment for anyone to claim that they have a right to have the same level of weaponry as a police officer or soldier.
    Yes, you've stated your opinion on this many times. I can only assume you continue to so doggedly do so because you want the law to prevent them from doing so and are backing up your wish with what you believe to be a constitutional justification.

  7. #247
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,710

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    All I have said is that there is no right under the Second Amendment for anyone to claim that they have a right to have the same level of weaponry as a police officer or soldier.

    I have no idea what all this CARING nonsense is about.
    maybe if you would finally tell us what arms are PROTECTED we pro rights advocates could have a more meaningful conversation with you

  8. #248
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,710

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I can't really grasp all the objection to the current weapons proposals. What the hell, the massacres that have occurred require some kind of response. Politicians seldom initiate solutions in our current environment of partisan divide. OTOH, they are trapped into having to do something and we are in the middle of the experience. Keerist, I'm delighted that the proposals are as minor as they are. Knee jerk overrreaction was my fear and the proposals are instead relatively minor. Great. As far as the NRA is concerned, screw them. They've become the voice of the radical right.
    MOre unabated idiocy. Of course you cannot see any objection. You want people disarmed.

    claiming the NRA is the voice of the radical right is the sort of psychobabble your posts are famous for. The biggest argument against the NRA is that they don't take a strong enough position against the pimps in DC and their anti right idiocy

  9. #249
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,710

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    your posting style is a perfect prototype of the incremental strategy of banning guns. Most people, unless they pay careful attention to your many gun posts, would not see your true agenda which of course is to incrementally ban guns. Almost every incrementalist pretends the "next step" is minor. Its obvious to us who understand the issue. I also note you often "like" more extremist suggestions of those whose anti gun agenda is not as well guarded as yours

  10. #250
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    your posting style is a perfect prototype of the incremental strategy of banning guns. Most people, unless they pay careful attention to your many gun posts, would not see your true agenda which of course is to incrementally ban guns. Almost every incrementalist pretends the "next step" is minor. Its obvious to us who understand the issue. I also note you often "like" more extremist suggestions of those whose anti gun agenda is not as well guarded as yours
    If you weren't so incredibly wrong, you might have a point. If you're this wrong about me, it is likely you are wrong about others.

    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 25 of 71 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •