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 37 of 71 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #361
    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
    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?
    I think that is rather the point. The point is found to be completely without merit, yet you insist on it. He is therefore demonstrating to you it's ineptitude by forcing you to come to grips with the fact that people who know what they are talking about and/or have the ability to remain logically consistent universally think the positions you have taken in this thread are unworthy of support.

  2. #362
    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
    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.
    Thank you for conceding that your interpretation is unsupported by any constitutional scholar.

  3. #363
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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?
    You are wrong. I have very clearly stated that if a ban resulted in eliminating all firearms that would clearly cause t he Second Amendment to be INFRINGED as the original meaning of the word clearly states.

    As I understand it, a nail gun is not a traditional arm in the area of self defense nor is that its primary purpose and intended use. But please feel free to show where its primary use indeed is for that purpose.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #364
    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
    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.
    Retaining sovereignty =/= accomplishing so little. I'd rather be poor and free than an upper middle class subject.



    But "if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
    - Samuel Adams

  5. #365
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Thank you for conceding that your interpretation is unsupported by any constitutional scholar.
    I am NOT doing that. I have clearly told you the following:

    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.

    So can you tell us why you refuse to consider the validity of an idea on its merits alone and insist upon using a fallacy to try to attack the idea since you are unable to do it on its own merits?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #366
    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 wrong. I have very clearly stated that if a ban resulted in eliminating all firearms that would clearly cause t he Second Amendment to be INFRINGED as the original meaning of the word clearly states.
    You have done no such thing, and you continue to dodge the question about what causes it to suddenly become an infringement when the government is banning a class of weapons that is equally protected as those which it can legally ban.

    As I understand it, a nail gun is not a traditional arm in the area of self defense nor is that its primary purpose and intended use. But please feel free to show where its primary use indeed is for that purpose.
    The Second Amendment not being designed for self-defense, that would be irrelevant. However, now we are getting somewhere. Are you arguing that the government does not have the right to ban "a traditional arm in the area of self defense"? If so, how do you explain your sudden switch to a position where one class of weapons (traditional arms in the area of self defense) are now more protected than others (non traditional arms in areas other than self defense).?

  7. #367
    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 cpwill View Post
    If the government banned all guns except for nail guns, would that be Constitutional?
    You will never get an honest answer to this question.

  8. #368
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    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
    Where did I say that firearms are protected under the Second Amendment?

    That is your serious error of misinterpretation. And thus all your attacks upon me fail because of your basic error in understanding what I actually said.

    again, to help and assist you - here is my statement from the discussion yesterday that you continue to misinterpret

    No class of arms is any more protected than any other. No specific model or usage of firearm is specially protected more than any other.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  9. #369
    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
    Retaining sovereignty =/= accomplishing so little. I'd rather be poor and free than an upper middle class subject.



    But "if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
    - Samuel Adams
    Did they? Which sovereignty? The one they had before we invaded? The one we placed in there? Or a new one?

    And who said anything about giving up liberty? I said there are more effective ways, especially here.

    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. #370
    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 Federalist View Post
    You will never get an honest answer to this question.
    Well, he's worked himself into a place where he is making mutually contradicting arguments, but he's too stubborn to admit it. I suppose a bit of cognitive dissonance is required for him to justify taking the party line on this one.

Page 37 of 71 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •