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 33 of 71 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #321
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,294

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Well, gosh. Afghani and Pakistani Taliban seem to mostly depend upon AK-47's, homemade explosives, and pieces of string. How are they doing?
    As a matter of fact, we're pulling out of Afghanistan. Everybody pulls out of Afghanistan. Are you planning on declaring victiory? As far as I'm concerned we should have gatten OBL at Tora Bora and pulled out. A management fubar prevented that. A correction was made, OBL is now dead and it is time to leave. I would not declare victory. Than again, there are lots of natural resources in Afghanistan and nice pipeline routes. All the Afghanis need is those AK47s to do quite well. So is that all we need here? But not with 100 round clips.

  2. #322
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    As a matter of fact, we're pulling out of Afghanistan
    Golly gee willickers, you mean the claim that armed, trained, civilians can generally stand toe-to-toe with an industrial military in an insurgency if they are able to retain the explicit consent or implicit noninterference of the populace?

    Goodness Gracious, it seems all those folks who are arguing that the "oh well we could never stand up to the government anyway" are dead wrong.

    Who could have known?


    All the Afghanis need is those AK47s to do quite well. So is that all we need here? But not with 100 round clips.
    Agreed. 100 round clips are stupid. Why, the rounds would fall right off, the whole dang thing would be impossibly unwieldy, you could never fire from the prone... That's why no one has ever built any. HOWEVER, the term is useful because it does highlight anyone in the gun debates who doesn't know what they are talking about .

  3. #323
    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 Ikari View Post
    Well the military would split, as would ours, but you can't do much against 1/5 of the world's population. Well I suppose if you had equal 1/5; but the government does not.
    Are you sure?

    I think the point is being missed. Technology has changed the world. Traditional weapons are no longer the end all they once were. Those countries relying on weapons are seriously crappy places to live. This country is a great place to live, and bee hold the power to overthrow the government without a shot being fired. The "gun" way is much less I viable today.

    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.

  4. #324
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Are you sure?

    I think the point is being missed. Technology has changed the world. Traditional weapons are no longer the end all they once were. Those countries relying on weapons are seriously crappy places to live. This country is a great place to live, and bee hold the power to overthrow the government without a shot being fired. The "gun" way is much less I viable today.
    Regretfully more true than you know.
    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.

  5. #325
    Advisor Dammitboy!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Meridian, Mississippi
    Last Seen
    04-13-13 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    343

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    A police officer has weapons because of the performance of his duties as a professional law enforcement officer in the employ of the peoples government.
    Why does the police officer have those weapons, what would he use them for, what is their purpose? They would use them as any law abiding civilian would use them, in self-defense against armed criminals. I did not say the police have them "because of the 2nd amendment" I said they have them to be on an equal footing with criminals. Is there a reason you think criminals should have an advantage in firepower?
    Some apes are more equal...

  6. #326
    Advisor Dammitboy!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Meridian, Mississippi
    Last Seen
    04-13-13 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    343

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Agreed. 100 round clips are stupid. Why, the rounds would fall right off, the whole dang thing would be impossibly unwieldy, you could never fire from the prone... That's why no one has ever built any. HOWEVER, the term is useful because it does highlight anyone in the gun debates who doesn't know what they are talking about .
    I have two 100 round Beta C-mags. They work great.
    Some apes are more equal...

  7. #327
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    Are you sure?

    I think the point is being missed. Technology has changed the world. Traditional weapons are no longer the end all they once were. Those countries relying on weapons are seriously crappy places to live. This country is a great place to live, and bee hold the power to overthrow the government without a shot being fired. The "gun" way is much less I viable today.
    Technology has certainly had a large impact. Government hold tremendous power (BTW, more reason to not trust it), they certainly are better able to defend themselves should the People wish a change. But it is still the right of the People to fight for that change, and it is not written in stone that the government will win. Our own troops have terrible times fighting low numbers of insurgents and they don't have a formal army, no tanks (in fact a formal army puts you in a worse situation with our military), etc.

    People can succeed even against seemingly insurmountable odds, and we are owed the chance. It is our government and we have right to replace it should it be necessary.
    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."

  8. #328
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    I have two 100 round Beta C-mags. They work great.
    Yeah I had a gunny and a corporal that rolled with c-mags in Iraq (explanatory quote from the gunny: "Son, anyone worth shooting is worth shooting many times). They just didn't have C-clips.

  9. #329
    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
    Your rights under the Second Amendment cannot be INFRINGED. That is clear and I have made that crystal clear over and over and over again. If the government creates a nation where the citizenry cannot have arms to keep and bear, then they have been INFRINGED.

    I have explained this many many times.
    Yes, you have explained your "unique" understanding of what the founders meant when they used the word infringed.

    Now all you have to do is to produce a constitutional scholar who agrees with you, and maybe, just maybe, someone will begin to actually take you seriously.

  10. #330
    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
    I already have done both.
    In you own mind, perhaps. And now, I predict, you will evade.

Page 33 of 71 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... 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
  •