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 36 of 71 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #351
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    I think he cannot get out of what he has said

    1) all firearms are "protected equally under the second amendment"

    2) we do not have a right under the second amendment to have the same civilian defensive weapons civilian police are issued for self defense

    3) therefore no firearms are protected for civilians who are not servants of the local state or federal governments

    there is no other possible explanation
    And notice that he ignores the logical bear trap he just stepped in with the lame, "That's your opinion, not my opinion." More dissembling -- how very surprising.

  2. #352
    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
    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.
    I do not suggest you trust the government. I suggest armed conflict is not the best, desirable or effective way to combat government today. Armed conflict is an antiquated idea that has limited effect today. And would last so long, cost so much, accomplish so little as to make it the least effective option.

    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.

  3. #353
    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 have no idea what you are talking about and apparently neither do you since you quoted no such thing from me. I provided you with the names of many judicial experts who also subscribe to the same methodology of ORIGINALISM that I am employing in correctly describing the original meaning of the word INFRINGED.

    Why are you attempting to employ the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM in a discussion about ideas?

    Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Great, so just show me an article by one of your fellow originalists who agrees with your interpretation of what the founders meant by infringed.

  4. #354
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    And notice that he ignores the logical bear trap he just stepped in with the lame, "That's your opinion, not my opinion." More dissembling -- how very surprising.
    There is no way out-and you and cp have seen it as well. The only way one can say they support the second amendment and be consistent with the other positions is to also hold the rejected "states' rights" model which holds (and was destroyed by the Lautenberg amendment to the 68 GCA and later in Emerson and Heller and McDonald) that the second only applies to the several states and not individuals. Got to run but that is the only possible consistency available

  5. #355
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    You stated that no class of weapons is more or less protected than any other, and that the government has the right to ban particular classes of weapons.

    If the remaining classes of weapons are not protected more than those that were banned, what about the state move against the remaining classes causes it to suddenly become an infringement?
    You are making the same fundamental error that a previous poster made last night when discussing this same subject. NO class of weapons is protected as a class or type or group. I have clearly stated that if the government were to ban ALL weapons then that would clearly cause the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED and it would be unconstitutional.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #356
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I do not suggest you trust the government. I suggest armed conflict is not the best, desirable or effective way to combat government today. Armed conflict is an antiquated idea that has limited effect today.
    yeah. so antiquated. That's why the Taliban is about to win in Afghanistan using the power of protest marches and posting really meaningful songs on Youtube

  7. #357
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Great, so just show me an article by one of your fellow originalists who agrees with your interpretation of what the founders meant by infringed.
    Why is the employment of the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM so important to you?

    Why do you refuse to consider the validity of an idea based on its merits alone?

    That sort of approach by you seems terribly anti-intellectual.

    I have not looked for anyone who either agrees with me or who may disagree with me. It means nothing to me and is irrelevant to the validity of the idea I have put forth.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  8. #358
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You are making the same fundamental error that a previous poster made last night when discussing this same subject. NO class of weapons is protected as a class or type or group. I have clearly stated that if the government were to ban ALL weapons then that would clearly cause the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED and it would be unconstitutional.
    Yes. What you have failed to do is depict a distinction between the bans that you find to be constitutional and the bans that you find to be unconstitutional that is consistent with this claim of yours. You have given no particular reason that why a ban on some classes of weapons would be legal but a ban on others would not.

    If the government banned all guns except for nail guns, would that be Constitutional?

  9. #359
    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 cpwill View Post
    yeah. so antiquated. That's why the Taliban is about to win in Afghanistan using the power of protest marches and posting really meaningful songs on Youtube
    Would you want to live there? Is that the future you would like to see for this country? Read what I said, the part you cut off (an attempt to mislead?):

    And would last so long, cost so much, accomplish so little as to make it the least effective option.

    And hell, they had a foreign invader and not merely overreacting gun owners.

    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.

  10. #360
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Really? Because as I recall when I quoted you the original meaning of the Founders you complained that you preferred Abraham Lincoln. Then I tried pointing out to you several points where the Founders had even written their meaning into law, and you claimed it was "just a piece of paper".


    The Founders, it is worth noting, believed in the private ownership of artillery, and when the government tried to take theirs, they used it on them.
    The opinion of a Founder changes nothing that they wrote in the actual Constitution. It is still just an individual opinion.

    My use of the Lincoln quote - "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" was simply used to show what type of government we do indeed have. It was not used or employed to support my view or my interpretation of any law or part of the Constitution.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

Page 36 of 71 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •