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 45 of 71 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #441
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    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.
    As I said, I suspect it would not pass the smell test.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #442
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    perhaps then you should take your own advice and refrain from using it.



    The language of the Second Amendment does not provide an answer for that.



    The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect either from legislation or regulation.




    The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.



    The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.



    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.
    so after months and months what you are saying is that the second amendment does not protect citizens' rights to own any guns. Thank you.

  3. #443
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so after months and months what you are saying is that the second amendment does not protect citizens' rights to own any guns. Thank you.
    NO. I did NOT say that. the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. That would mean owning a gun.

    This is beyond dispute.

    Perhaps you are unsatisfied with what the Amendment actually says? You could always propose changing it through the Amendment process.
    Last edited by haymarket; 01-17-13 at 07:03 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. #444
    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. I did NOT say that. the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. That would mean owning a gun.
    Guns are not specifically mentioned.

  5. #445
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Guns are not specifically mentioned.
    So you wish to exclude guns from the Amendment 2?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #446
    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
    As I said, I suspect it would not pass the smell test.
    Yes, you already said this. My question was WHY would it smell? No other sort of firearm is protected in any way. No reason why all firearms except a single shot .22 could not be prohibited, no? A person with a single shot .22 is certainly enjoying his right to keep and bear arms, so what problem could the Supreme Court have with such a prohibition?

  7. #447
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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
    You are missing the point...the point being....gun nut wackos will cry about ANY restriction on guns. Period.
    <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>

  8. #448
    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
    So you wish to exclude guns from the Amendment 2?
    Exclude? Of course not. They are arms, so the right to keep and bear them may not be infringed.

  9. #449
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    You are missing the point...the point being....gun nut wackos will cry about ANY restriction on guns. Period.
    Just like left wingnuts got bat**** crazy over 30 kids but support abortion while ignoring alcohol and drug related deaths among kids.

  10. #450
    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
    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.
    I disagree, I do think that they serve the same purpose, defense of life, liberty, and property from any threat. I do think that not only is it relevant today, it is necessary for us to understand the importance and to be properly trained and prepared. It's not to say that we should fly off at the littlest of things; but you cannot be lax in your duty and responsibilities to the Republic either. Free is a low entropy state, it necessitates continual work merely to maintain, even more to improve. If you don't put in the work at all, it WILL degrade; without doubt, without exception. It's essentially physics.
    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 45 of 71 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... 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
  •