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 42 of 71 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #411
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    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.
    You ask me for technical expertise that a police officer has and I inform you I posess no such knowledge.

    Why are you attacking me for an honest answer?

    Why are you thanking me for getting out of teaching?

    You pontificate about "advancing the discussion" but your tone and statements here show that honesty on your part is in short supply.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  2. #412
    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
    You ask me for technical expertise that a police officer has and I inform you I posess no such knowledge.
    I did no such thing. I asked you for your humble opinion about why the police carry such firearms. It's common knowledge and easily googled searched if you'd like to educate yourself. It's also fairly reasonable and logical to be able to comprehend why they carry such firearms. Are you saying you have neither the ability or desire to make any such deduction? Did your ability to use the cognitive thought process stop functioning when you stopped teaching?

    Or are you just continuing to deflect without addressing the points I brought up? This is the obvious and most reasonable answer. No one is saying your opinion would be counted as technical expertise. lol
    Some apes are more equal...

  3. #413
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    I did no such thing. I asked you for your humble opinion about why the police carry such firearms. It's common knowledge and easily googled searched if you'd like to educate yourself. It's also fairly reasonable and logical to be able to comprehend why they carry such firearms. Are you saying you have neither the ability or desire to make any such deduction? Did your ability to use the cognitive thought process stop functioning when you stopped teaching?

    Or are you just continuing to deflect without addressing the points I brought up? This is the obvious and most reasonable answer. No one is saying your opinion would be counted as technical expertise. lol
    I have no inside knowledge of the duties or job performance of a police officer regarding weapon needs and requirements.

    Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

    Am I suppose to take the same 'shoot from the lip and pontificate about crap you don't really know much about' that far too many others do to pretend to be knowledgable when they clearly are not? I consider that a vice and not a virtue and will not contribute to such nonsense.

    There are many things I can speak with a firm base of knowledge and experience from. This technical area of police weaponry is not one of them.

    Why is it here that some folks get extremely frustrated and become snarky with personal attacks when you state that you simply have nothing to say on a particular item in a discussion? Could it be that they felt they were laying some sort of trap and they became angry when it failed to spring as designed? I strongly suspect as much. But that is just my own humble opinion based on experience and knowledge.
    Last edited by haymarket; 01-17-13 at 12:50 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #414
    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
    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.
    Once again, you evade, avoid, and dissemble.

    You have put forth the argument that "to infringe" relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right.

    Okay, so now, if we are to accept your assertion, we must conclude that it is constitutional to enact restrictions on gun ownership, just as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not destroyed. You have told us this yourself.

    Therefore, based upon your requirement, a restriction banning all other guns but black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks would not destroy the right to keep and bear arms, since someone with such a firearm can certainly be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms.

    If you don't agree with the result of your own logic, then perhaps your logic is flawed in the first place.

  5. #415
    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"

    Deflection duly noted. Don't you have some policy to wonk somewhere? Are you playing on the internet while you are supposed to be working? I hope you aren't being paid with my tax dollars.
    Some apes are more equal...

  6. #416
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Once again, you evade, avoid, and dissemble.

    You have put forth the argument that "to infringe" relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right.

    Okay, so now, if we are to accept your assertion, we must conclude that it is constitutional to enact restrictions on gun ownership, just as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not destroyed. You have told us this yourself.

    Therefore, based upon your requirement, a restriction banning all other guns but black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks would not destroy the right to keep and bear arms, since someone with such a firearm can certainly be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms.

    If you don't agree with the result of your own logic, then perhaps your logic is flawed in the first place.
    No. That is your assumption based on what you think I believe. I never said a word about flintlocks or muskets passing any sort of Constitutional test. In fact, I said the opposite.

    here it is - again - for you

    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.
    I hope that clears up your confusion on the matter.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  7. #417
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    Deflection duly noted. Don't you have some policy to wonk somewhere? Are you playing on the internet while you are supposed to be working? I hope you aren't being paid with my tax dollars.
    You really do not like honest answers that frustrate your rather shabbily laid traps now do you? Attacking me is a poor substitute for being able to discuss the issue honestly.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #418
    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
    You really do not like honest answers that frustrate your rather shabbily laid traps now do you? Attacking me is a poor substitute for being able to discuss the issue honestly.
    Why do you attack me? I merely asked straightforward questions which you have avoided answering at all costs. You have not been honest at all, intellectually or otherwise. Deflection is the hobgoblin of the dishonest. Shabbily laid traps? Paranoid much? lol

    Please explain for the class how I am laying traps for you honey.
    Some apes are more equal...

  9. #419
    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"

    Petition to the White House:

    To lead by example and issue an Executive Order to the Secret Service and armed divisions of every federal agency except for DOD to immediately stop using all weapons and magazines that would be banned under the legislation the president supports.

    The president says these weapons of war have no place on the streets of America. Unless the administration is at war with the American people it doesn't need them any more then the public does.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...untry/rSwfrqbR
    Some apes are more equal...

  10. #420
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    Why do you attack me? I merely asked straightforward questions which you have avoided answering at all costs. You have not been honest at all, intellectually or otherwise. Deflection is the hobgoblin of the dishonest. Shabbily laid traps? Paranoid much? lol

    Please explain for the class how I am laying traps for you honey.
    It is obvious that you became very frustrated and went on the attack impugning my professional work both now and in teaching when I told you I did not have the technical expertise to answer your questions. You obviously had a prepared response in your mind and were eager to knock down the dominoes if only I had played along and read the lines you scripted for me.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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 42 of 71 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... 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
  •