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 41 of 71 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #401
    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 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.
    Now your are being purposely deceptive about your position. Your position has been that as long as long as one is not disarmed by the government, then the government is obeying the 2nd amendment. This position of your relies upon your "odd" interpretation of the word infringed, and based upon this interpretation, the only prohibited infringement would be a complete ban on all arms.

    This is a preposterous position that would allow a ban on all firearms except black powder muzzle loading flintlocks.

    As I said before, I might give your ridiculous interpretation some passing consideration if you can provide any constitutional scholars who support this "anything but a complete ban is constitutional" line of thinking.

  2. #402
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    I have found from experience that the term can mean different things to different people depending where they are on the far right spectrum. It is always better to ask and get a definition than it is to assume.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  3. #403
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    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?
    I never claimed otherwise.

    I have no idea why you seek to attack me in your first sentence as I was clearly speaking about the material posted here regarding the false equivalency between police having weapons and the claimed rights of a citizen to have the same just because the police do.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #404
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The second amendment has nothing to do with the police.
    Glad we agree. I wish others here knew what we know.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #405
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Now your are being purposely deceptive about your position. Your position has been that as long as long as one is not disarmed by the government, then the government is obeying the 2nd amendment. This position of your relies upon your "odd" interpretation of the word infringed, and based upon this interpretation, the only prohibited infringement would be a complete ban on all arms.

    This is a preposterous position that would allow a ban on all firearms except black powder muzzle loading flintlocks.

    As I said before, I might give your ridiculous interpretation some passing consideration if you can provide any constitutional scholars who support this "anything but a complete ban is constitutional" line of thinking.
    The position on flintlocks is YOUR position. It is not my position. Why do you insist on perverting, distorting and generally completely misrepresenting what I have stated instead of dealing with my actual words and positions?

    It is not my fault that the wording of the Second Amendment is as it is. It is not my fault that the word INFRINGED meant what it meant according to mainstream popular usage at that time of American history.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #406
    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
    I never claimed otherwise.
    Good, let's see if you can continue to be honest and straightforward.

    Why do the police carry AR-15's and high capacity handguns? In your humble opinion, what is the need for such weapons?
    Some apes are more equal...

  7. #407
    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
    The position on flintlocks is YOUR position. It is not my position. Why do you insist on perverting, distorting and generally completely misrepresenting what I have stated instead of dealing with my actual words and positions?
    That most certainly is your position. Based upon your interpretation of the word infringed, you have said that as long as people are able to enjoy their right to keep and bear arms they are being protected by the 2nd amendment. A person who owns a black powder muzzle loading flintlock can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, according to your a ban on all other arms would still pass constitutional muster, since the people may still enjoy their right to keep and bear arms.

    So now I'm going to ask you a question. It is a true/false question. I go on record as predicting that you will respond but provide no actual answer, but it will be instructive for the audience to see you respond anyway. Here's the question: "A ban on all weapons but muzzle loading black powder flintlocks is constitutional. True or false?"

  8. #408
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    Good, let's see if you can continue to be honest and straightforward.

    Why do the police carry AR-15's and high capacity handguns? In your humble opinion, what is the need for such weapons?
    I was a teacher for 33 years. I now work in the state legislature formulating policy and politics. I honestly do not have the knowledge nor the experience of a police officer to answer such a question. Perhaps a police officer would be the proper expert to pose these questions to.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #409
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    That most certainly is your position.
    No it is not. But feel free to provide the quote where I clearly stated that position about flintlocks. I look forward to it.

    As the rest of your post is obviously based on a false premise about my position, it deserves no response despite your effort to play Prosecutor in the Starr Chamber.


    My personal opinion is that the Supreme Court would never agree with your musket scheme as Constitutional. But again, I do not and cannot speak for them.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  10. #410
    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
    I was a teacher for 33 years. I now work in the state legislature formulating policy and politics. I honestly do not have the knowledge nor the experience of a police officer to answer such a question. Perhaps a police officer would be the proper expert to pose these questions to.
    Ahh, back to deflection to avoid discourse. Just as I suspected, you have no wish to advance the discussion. Obfuscation is a pretty weak crutch, but I guess you need it having no real argument against reasonable self-defense. Not that I'd expect anything different from someone who "works" as a policy wonk. Thanks for getting out of teaching though.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to self-defense. They also ruled that it is reasonable that the founders meant by "arms" any firearm in common use by the general public. The AR-15 rifle is the most commonly owned rifle in the United States.

    Why do the police carry AR-15's? Police departments all across the country upgraded to the AR-15 when they decided that their use of shotguns as a patrol vehicle firearm left them outgunned in some cases when confronting criminals. This is the same reason the police upgraded from six shot revolvers to 16 shot Glock .40 caliber sidearms. In order to keep up with what criminals would most likely be using against the police officer.

    So if the police see a realistic need to have AR-15's and Glock .40's to defend themselves against the criminal element, it seems reasonable and logical to expect that other civilians not in uniform would be prudent to defend themselves in the same manner against the same criminals they might come in contact with.

    Please note: I'm not claiming police are mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm not claiming AR-15's are discussed in the 2nd. I'm also not mentioning Unicorns. I'm discussing self-defense which is covered by the 2nd and giving relevant examples of self-defense. I really don't expect you to become enlightened however, so please do continue being intellectually dishonest in as political a fashion as you like.
    Some apes are more equal...

Page 41 of 71 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... 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
  •