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 43 of 71 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #421
    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 Dammitboy! View Post
    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
    Yeah right...the government would not disarm.
    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."

  2. #422
    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
    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.
    How long have you been suffering from this paranoid delusion?

    Wait - this is just more deflecting from the discussion right? You clever little minx!
    Some apes are more equal...

  3. #423
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,810

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yeah right...the government would not disarm.
    Psst! Psst!

    Not everyone knows this....only the smart ones.

    Be vewry, vewry quiet.
    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

  4. #424
    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. 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.
    Quite true. You never explicitly said a word about flintlocks. And now, for the benefit of the class, I'm going to do a little exercise. We call it logical reasoning.

    Your position is that "to infringe", relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means only to completely destroy the right.

    So how does one destroy the right to keep and bear arms? By completely preventing its exercise. As you have said before, if a person possesses a firearm, then they can be said to be enjoying their right to do so. Therefore, the possession of a firearm, any firearm at all, is evidence that the right to keep and bear arms has not been destroyed.

    Therefore, (and watch carefully, because what we're doing here is what grown-ups call "logical reasoning"), if all guns are banned except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks, then people are still legally able to possess such firearms. A person in possession of such a firearm can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. If a person is enjoying a right, that right has not been destroyed. Therefore, per your definition of infringe, a complete ban on all firearms except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks is completely compatible with your demented interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    Now, if you are not happy with the outcome of this logical, please feel to explain why your initial premises cannot lead to the conclusion we reached.

  5. #425
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    01-24-13 @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Little Jimmy through gum at Cindy's hair, now no-one in school can chew gum... Basically the Gov. is punishing everyone for something that just a couple people have done. They shouldn't punish us, but up their security. If Obama is focusing on children, then up the security around schools... It is my right to protect my property I do believe, if I'm wrong please tell me, and if we are not allowed to own guns with significant fire power, that will give thiefs/criminals who do own these firepowers illegally the upper hand when robbing houses. In my old neighborhood there was a man who stopped a robbery by shooting the thief... What if he hadn't had a gun!? I mean seriously the abolishment of all guns is completely retarded, but to get rid of automatics could prove tragic as well. It is not the guns that is the problem, but the requirements to own a gun and the security placed around schools and other popular zones of shootings. Don't punish me for something I never did.

  6. #426
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,698

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    How long have you been suffering from this paranoid delusion?

    Wait - this is just more deflecting from the discussion right? You clever little minx!
    recognizing your tactics and your frustration hardly rises to the level of paranoia.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #427
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,698

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Quite true. You never explicitly said a word about flintlocks. And now, for the benefit of the class, I'm going to do a little exercise. We call it logical reasoning.

    Your position is that "to infringe", relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means only to completely destroy the right.

    So how does one destroy the right to keep and bear arms? By completely preventing its exercise. As you have said before, if a person possesses a firearm, then they can be said to be enjoying their right to do so. Therefore, the possession of a firearm, any firearm at all, is evidence that the right to keep and bear arms has not been destroyed.

    Therefore, (and watch carefully, because what we're doing here is what grown-ups call "logical reasoning"), if all guns are banned except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks, then people are still legally able to possess such firearms. A person in possession of such a firearm can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. If a person is enjoying a right, that right has not been destroyed. Therefore, per your definition of infringe, a complete ban on all firearms except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks is completely compatible with your demented interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    Now, if you are not happy with the outcome of this logical, please feel to explain why your initial premises cannot lead to the conclusion we reached.
    Are you operating under the false belief that the Supreme Court will adopt the rules similar to that of the Yale Logic Club in their deliberations?

    And do you further labor under the self imposed belief that we are still living in the 18th century?

    It seems that both are at the core of your claims that you are trying badly to pin upon me even thought I have repeatedly told you those are not my views.
    Last edited by haymarket; 01-17-13 at 03:07 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

  8. #428
    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
    Are you operating under the false belief that the Supreme Court will adopt the rules similar to that of the Yale Logic Club in their deliberations?
    I was not talking about the supreme court. I was walking you through the logical ramifications of your ridiculous contention that "to infringe", relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means only to completely destroy the right.

    And I know I was successful due to your non-response and decision to respond with a non sequitur.

    And do you further labor under the self imposed belief that we are still living in the 18th century?
    Another non sequitur. That means I really connected with a headshot.

    It seems that both are at the core of your claims that you are trying badly to pin upon me even thought I have repeatedly told you those are not my views.
    You claim that unless one is completely denied arms their right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed. This means that barring all firearms except single shot, black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

    It's called logic. Check it out sometime.

  9. #429
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,698

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Quite true. You never explicitly said a word about flintlocks. And now, for the benefit of the class, I'm going to do a little exercise. We call it logical reasoning.
    Federalist - since you are such a fan of logic, why is it when I have explained to you that it is your position which is illogical since court after court has upheld tons of what you and others call incremental infringements upon your own broad view of the Second Amendment - thus rendering them in what you would say should be unconstitutional - and thus it is your view which is illogical, you conveniently ignore that?

    One would think that a skilled logic practitioner such as you are attempting to be would be far more consistent and well...... logical.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #430
    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
    Federalist - since you are such a fan of logic, why is it when I have explained to you that it is your position which is illogical since court after court has upheld tons of what you and others call incremental infringements upon your own broad view of the Second Amendment - thus rendering them in what you would say should be unconstitutional - and thus it is your view which is illogical, you conveniently ignore that?
    And this somehow proves your ridiculous claim that "to infringe" means to completely destroy?

    I think that all it proves is that the court sees some limits on the right to keep and bear arms as reasonable and justified, and therefore constitutional.

Page 43 of 71 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... 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
  •