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 40 of 71 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #391
    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
    Sadly for your position, the Second Amendment does not say this nor extend to you that right.
    You seem confused. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is a individual right to self-defense. If the police need such firearms to fight crime and defend themselves against criminals, other civilians who do not wear uniforms are entitled to the same level of defense against the same criminals.
    Some apes are more equal...

  2. #392
    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
    On the contrary, encroachment is encroachment, and relative power is zero sum.
    So, every act on everything is encroachment? I'm sorry, but the notion of regulation is well established.

    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. #393
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,912

    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.
    Why are you focusing on the trivial and the obscure which was clearly identified as LITTLE USED and ignoring the mainstream meaning which is far more definitive?

    Every judge for the last 200 plus years who has ever upheld a law restricting guns agrees with my position that you can limit such things as long as you still allow people to keep and bear arms.

    And that is a legion of scholars and judges.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #394
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,912

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post


    Well that is a sad, but, given your performance in this thread, I would have to say at least an honest self-assessment.
    The reality that I cannot argue with a person dead for hundreds of years is labeled by you as "sad"?!?!?!?!? WOW!!!!!!

    And your whole rant about the government violating and abusing the rights of "sovereign individuals" - what ever that may mean to you via your own self imposed belief system - has never been established by you. There is no evidence of it so any academic theory means nothing in the absence of reality.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #395
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,912

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    You seem confused. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is a individual right to self-defense. If the police need such firearms to fight crime and defend themselves against criminals, other civilians who do not wear uniforms are entitled to the same level of defense against the same criminals.
    The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind about police weapons.

    Neither does the Second Amendment.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #396
    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
    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.
    All governments ultimately live by the consent of the people. But to get to the point of revolution, we'd already be past the point of gun regulations. And regardless of such regulations, we'd find weapons, just as they do around the world. Dictators who got in power got there not primarily due to weapons bans, but due to people accepting their particular snake oil. Some preyed on the fear of some enemy. Some spoke of nationalism and national pride. Some stole it by using the already established military. The point is, today, having a gun will not prevent any possible future issue. The argument that we need semi automatics to defend democracy here really holds no water. If we need weapons, there is no democracy here. Guns are not magic, but merely a tool. And sadly, a tool that will always be in abundance.

    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.

  7. #397
    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 haymarket View Post
    The reality that I cannot argue with a person dead for hundreds of years is labeled by you as "sad"?!?!?!?!? WOW!!!!!!

    And your whole rant about the government violating and abusing the rights of "sovereign individuals" - what ever that may mean to you via your own self imposed belief system - has never been established by you. There is no evidence of it so any academic theory means nothing in the absence of reality.
    The sovereignty of the individual is one of the key fundamentals of our Republic style government. One cannot be so daft as to not understand what it means.
    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. #398
    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
    The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind about police weapons.

    Neither does the Second Amendment.
    I see, you have a failure to comprehend issue, since I posted nothing of the sort. Either that or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose in a failed effort to discourage open discourse.

    Surely you are not claiming the the Court did not rule that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to self-defense?
    Some apes are more equal...

  9. #399
    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
    All governments ultimately live by the consent of the people. But to get to the point of revolution, we'd already be past the point of gun regulations. And regardless of such regulations, we'd find weapons, just as they do around the world. Dictators who got in power got there not primarily due to weapons bans, but due to people accepting their particular snake oil. Some preyed on the fear of some enemy. Some spoke of nationalism and national pride. Some stole it by using the already established military. The point is, today, having a gun will not prevent any possible future issue. The argument that we need semi automatics to defend democracy here really holds no water. If we need weapons, there is no democracy here. Guns are not magic, but merely a tool. And sadly, a tool that will always be in abundance.
    Guns are not magic, they are tools; quite right. And the remain legitimate and rightful tool of the People.
    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."

  10. #400
    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 haymarket View Post
    The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind about police weapons.

    Neither does the Second Amendment.
    The second amendment has nothing to do with the police.
    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 40 of 71 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... 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
  •