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 39 of 71 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #381
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I sure did. I told you that a nail gun was not intended to be a weapon nor was that its intended usage so it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
    Which did not answer the question at all. Would it be legal for the government to ban all guns except nail guns? That's a Yes/No.


    The follow on question was, by your answer you are implicitly arguing that the government does not have the right to ban guns intended for self-defense? That is also a yes/no.

  2. #382
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, it isn't. It's the pretense some have put forth. The thread is about a compromise. having some regulation, restrictions, is not a situation where anyone loses 2nd amendment rights, and certainly no liberty is lost. Your side is largely overreacting, as has become quite typical.
    On the contrary, encroachment is encroachment, and relative power is zero sum.

  3. #383
    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 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?
    Yes, because your opinion that "infringed" means "to completely destroy" is preposterous, especially since, as lizzie pointed out, it also means "to hinder".

    However, never let it be said that Federalist has a closed mind. So if you can show me where a constitutional scholar agrees with your opinion on the definition of infringed, I might give your opinion more credence.

  4. #384
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,765

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Start Here. This may take you a while, as apparently it is new to you.
    I read Locke in college. A whole lot more than just that excerpt.

    So what?

    What is it in that excerpt that you identify and believe in as a theory of government? Be specific as I cannot argue against a long dead man and his article.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  5. #385
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,765

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Yes, because your opinion that "infringed" means "to completely destroy" is preposterous, especially since, as lizzie pointed out, it also means "to hinder".

    However, never let it be said that Federalist has a closed mind. So if you can show me where a constitutional scholar agrees with your opinion on the definition of infringed, I might give your opinion more credence.
    When Lizzie pointed out the meaning of TO HINDER it clearly said that it was LITTLE USED and the other far more definitive meanings were there as in the 1828 Websters that I have repeatedly presented giving the meaning of destruction and negation of the right itself.

    Why would you ignore the mainstream meaning which is definitive and obvious in favor of the obscure and little used?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #386
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I read Locke in college. A whole lot more than just that excerpt.
    Then you should know better. but you don't.

    What is it in that excerpt that you identify and believe in as a theory of government?
    Our theory of government is built upon Locke's argument that power flowing to the government from the sovereign individual is not final (which was Hobbes' argument, with his one notable exception). When government therefore abuses the rights of its' sovereign individuals, it has effectively voided the social contract and entered into a state of war with them. At that point, the citizenry can either defend themselves and retain sovereignty, or surrender and have its' exercise taken it from them.

    Be specific as I cannot argue against a long dead man and his article.
    Well that is a sad, but, given your performance in this thread, I would have to say at least an honest self-assessment.

  7. #387
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Yes, because your opinion that "infringed" means "to completely destroy" is preposterous, especially since, as lizzie pointed out, it also means "to hinder".

    However, never let it be said that Federalist has a closed mind. So if you can show me where a constitutional scholar agrees with your opinion on the definition of infringed, I might give your opinion more credence.
    Not a constitutional scholar but it really isn't that different than "abridged" in the first Amendment and the Courts allow Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions on those as long as they are reasonable. Since Reasonable really is measured in a more objective societal viewpoint, one might could argue that if society finds it reasonable that nobody be allowed a AR15, then that is Constitutional. Of course the danger of ceding that point is what is reasonable under the first amendment has become "theoretically possible" under the 4th amendment so it is a steep slope.

  8. #388
    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
    When Lizzie pointed out the meaning of TO HINDER it clearly said that it was LITTLE USED and the other far more definitive meanings were there as in the 1828 Websters that I have repeatedly presented giving the meaning of destruction and negation of the right itself.

    Why would you ignore the mainstream meaning which is definitive and obvious in favor of the obscure and little used?
    As I said, I'll consider entertaining you unique interpretation when I see this interpretation supported by some constitutional scholars.

  9. #389
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,820

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Then you should know better. but you don't.



    Our theory of government is built upon Locke's argument that power flowing to the government from the sovereign individual is not final (which was Hobbes' argument, with his one notable exception). When government therefore abuses the rights of its' sovereign individuals, it has effectively voided the social contract and entered into a state of war with them. At that point, the citizenry can either defend themselves and retain sovereignty, or surrender and have its' exercise taken it from them.



    Well that is a sad, but, given your performance in this thread, I would have to say at least an honest self-assessment.
    Well done, my friend! Well done.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  10. #390
    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
    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.
    Armed conflict is certainly not the most desirable way to control government. Nor do I suggest its employ over any sort of trivial matter or minor disagreement. It's dangerous not only because of the obvious dangers inherent to war but more importantly because you don't really know what you'll get on the other side.

    Revolution is the last act of a desperate and abused people. Yet it remains a proper and rightful act for the People and one of the ultimate checks upon government. Government is only permitted to liv e so long as it abides by the rights and liberties of the People. Government's legitimacy is derived through the consent of its People and that consent may be withdrawn.
    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."

Page 39 of 71 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •