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 44 of 71 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #431
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

    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?

    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.
    I don't recall there being a logic club at yale. There was a political union which exists to this day and gun issues were often debated there. and there is a Law school where the preeminent constitutional scholar is a gentleman named Akhil Reed Amar who despite being liberal suggests that the individual rights interpretation of the second amendment is correct.

    But I think things would be so much easier in your conversations with those of us who truly support the second amendment if you would

    1) tell us what sort of laws currently being discussed would-in your opinion-violate the second amendment

    2) if you do not believe that the proposed bans on "assault weapons" (a term that mainly deals with semi autos that have certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash hiders and folding or collapsing stocks) are unconstitutional, at what point what sort of ban would become unconstitutional

    3) If you do not believe a magazine limit is unconstitutional tell us what limit would be unconstitutional. If you believe the government may limit firearms to only one shot, let us know

    4) and finally, what was the purpose of the second amendment

    a) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that regular infantry uses

    b) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that militia serving with regulars would use

    c) to allow only civilians who are members of the national guard or state police forces to have certain weapons

    I think if you could give the sort of straight answers most of those of us on this gun control section of this forum do, it would clear much up

  2. #432
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    You could say "let's make sure that individuals can't obtain nuclear warheads" and the gun nuts would be all outraged claiming "they are taking away our rights".
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #433
    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
    Guns are not magic, they are tools; quite right. And the remain legitimate and rightful tool of the People.
    I don't say otherwise. But I do say they don't serve he same purpose, and that our attachment to them is less relevant today.

    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.

  4. #434
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,690

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Turtle asks.

    1) tell us what sort of laws currently being discussed would-in your opinion-violate the second amendment
    I have repeatedly stated the same thing: if the government created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms, then it would violate the Second Amendment. That applies to ALL and ANY laws now being considered if they had that effect.



    2) if you do not believe that the proposed bans on "assault weapons" (a term that mainly deals with semi autos that have certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash hiders and folding or collapsing stocks) are unconstitutional, at what point what sort of ban would become unconstitutional
    same answer as #1 - and why is it okay for you and others in the gun culture to use the phrase ASSAULT WEAPONS but when others do it they are mocked and ridiculed and we told there are not such things?

    3) If you do not believe a magazine limit is unconstitutional tell us what limit would be unconstitutional. If you believe the government may limit firearms to only one shot, let us know
    same answer as #1.


    4) and finally, what was the purpose of the second amendment
    To allow citizens to keep and bear arms.

    a) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that regular infantry uses
    that is a statement NOT a question that can be answered.

    b) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that militia serving with regulars would use
    another statement and not a question

    c) to allow only civilians who are members of the national guard or state police forces to have certain weapons
    a third statement and not a question

    If a, b and c were suppose to be multiple choice - I reject them all and provided the actual answer which you left out.

    I think if you could give the sort of straight answers most of those of us on this gun control section of this forum do, it would clear much up
    Just did.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #435
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    You could say "let's make sure that individuals can't obtain nuclear warheads" and the gun nuts would be all outraged claiming "they are taking away our rights".
    idiotic post alert. Its almost always the anti gun extremists who try to make that claim that when we argue we civilians should have the same civilian defensive weapons that CIVILIAN police officers are issued to defend themselves against the same criminals we face, we somehow are arguing we ought to have ICBMS

    your Heroes-Obama and Cuomo are not trying to limit us from having ICBMS, Nukes or WMDs. They are trying to prevent us from owning weapons that hold even less than half the amount of cartridges that CIVILIAN cops, poultry inspectors, dog wardens and court security officers are regularly issued

    so please stop trying to divert with such silly idiocy about nukes

    its not honest nor helpful

  6. #436
    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 have repeatedly stated the same thing: if the government created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms, then it would violate the Second Amendment.
    Therefore, if the government creates an environment where a person can at least keep and bear some form of arm, then it is not violating the 2nd amendment, even if it bans all other arms than the type permitted.

    Your "the 2nd would only be violated if a person could not keep and bear arms" suits you, because it allows you to justify laws that restrict gun possession. It allows you to justify any restriction short of an outright ban.

    Too bad you can't back up your ridiculous "infringe means to destroy" opinion with any support from constitutional scholars.
    Last edited by Federalist; 01-17-13 at 06:40 PM.

  7. #437
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Turtle asks.


    I have repeatedly stated the same thing: if the government created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms, then it would violate the Second Amendment. That applies to ALL and ANY laws now being considered if they had that effect.





    same answer as #1 - and why is it okay for you and others in the gun culture to use the phrase ASSAULT WEAPONS but when others do it they are mocked and ridiculed and we told there are not such things?


    same answer as #1.



    To allow citizens to keep and bear arms.



    that is a statement NOT a question that can be answered.


    another statement and not a question


    a third statement and not a question

    If a, b and c were suppose to be multiple choice - I reject them all and provided the actual answer which you left out.



    Just did.

    I put "assault weapons" in quotation marks. Its a silly term that your party has used in an attempt to scare LIVs.

    can you tell us what sort of weapons you think the second amendment allows non law enforcement civilians to own free of banning by the federal or state government

    1) semi automatic pistols-and if so are there any limits to magazine capacity


    2) semi auto rifles-and if so what sort of features are protected by the second amendment

    same with magazine capacity

    3) semi auto shotguns-and what features are protected by the second amendment

  8. #438
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,690

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Therefore, if the government creates an environment where a person can at least keep and bear some form of arm, then it is not violating the 2nd amendment, even if it bans all other arms than the type permitted.
    I imagine it would have to pass some sort of smell test in front of the Supreme Court.

    My own suspicion is that limiting a person to an old firearm with only one shot would not pass that test while the current NY law just passed allows lots of choices for a person and probably would pass that test,. But that is just my personal opinion.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #439
    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 imagine it would have to pass some sort of smell test in front of the Supreme Court.

    My own suspicion is that limiting a person to an old firearm with only one shot would not pass that test while the current NY law just passed allows lots of choices for a person and probably would pass that test,. But that is just my personal opinion.
    Why wouldn't it? Even the person with an old firearm with only one shot would still be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. What could the supreme court possibly find wrong with such a law? Such a law would not destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

  10. #440
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,690

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I put "assault weapons" in quotation marks. Its a silly term that your party has used in an attempt to scare LIVs.
    perhaps then you should take your own advice and refrain from using it.

    can you tell us what sort of weapons you think the second amendment allows non law enforcement civilians to own free of banning by the federal or state government
    The language of the Second Amendment does not provide an answer for that.

    1) semi automatic pistols-and if so are there any limits to magazine capacity
    The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect either from legislation or regulation.


    2) semi auto rifles-and if so what sort of features are protected by the second amendment
    The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.

    same with magazine capacity
    The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.

    3) semi auto shotguns-and what features are protected by the second amendment
    The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.

    Of course, should you desire such protections, you can always use the amendment process to amend the Constitution.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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 44 of 71 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... 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
  •