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 47 of 71 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #461
    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
    How is requiring a waiting period "punishing the rest of the nation?"

    How is requiring loopholes for gunshows closed "punishing the rest of the nation?"

    How is requiring registration of guns "punishing the rest of the nation?"

    How is banning assault weapons "Punishing the rest of the nation?"

    The vast majority of the country supports all of these things. The only people who are crying uncontrollably about them are the far out fringe gun nuts that will cry about ANY regulation of weapons. Period.
    We already have waiting periods.

    I could care less about the gun shows, however until you regulate gun sales on the street, gun shows are a small portion of the factor being addressed.

    If you are banning true assault weapons it doesn't, Lanza used a civilian rifle. Assault weapons are full auto.

  2. #462
    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 disneydude View Post
    Really? How is a waiting period "Paranoia and fear"?
    They are unnecessary and produce no positive result. It's the use of government force to infringe upon the exercise of rights for the null case. I call that irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    How is requiring people to register their guns like we register a vehicle "paranoia and and fear".
    Government databasing, big brother scrutiny for what? What do we get? Except an easy to access list of people who have guns? What does it prevent? Nothing. So you want the government to infringe upon my property, my right to secure myself and papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure for what? Nothing. Again, irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    How is closing loopholes that allow people to willy/nilly buy weapons at gun shows that they couldn't elsewhere "paranoia and fear".
    What does it solve? What does this use of government force net us? Was there a significant amount of illegal guns being passed through gun shows?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    How is a ban on unecessary assault weapons "paranoia and fear".
    What does it net you? How many crimes are carried out with "assault weapons"? How many of those were legally purchased and registered? Government force against the free exercise of rights with no net gain. Irrational

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The reality is that the only "paranoia and fear" is coming from the gun nuts and the anti-government wackos that have the distorted belief that everyone is out to get them and are coming to take away their guns.
    The reality is that some of you live in such fear of low probability events that you will excuse any amount of government force to feel a little bit better. But truth be known, y'all piss yourselves at the slightest of thumps and without cause, without sound demonstration of gain, you elicit government against the free exercise of rights. You don't even understand the statistics, nor the reason for acknowledging rights, nor the consequences and repercussions of freedom. But you'll trade my freedom for some perceived "safety"; and in so doing you demonstrate why we still need guns. Irrational monkeys do irrational monkey things, and I do not believe I should be held accountable and subjugated to your stupidity.
    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."

  3. #463
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.
    Unless of course they are in the military or LE or plan to be and want to practice on their own time. Of course, you can hunt with them. Just because there are alternatives does not mean they could not be used for hunting. Either way, it is a fight the left lost the second Obama started issuing EO's.

  4. #464
    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
    Attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.
    I use one just like this one for hog and deer hunting. It is a civilian produced gun that is only semi auto and not used by the military. Your comparison is like calling a corvette a race car when it isn't.


  5. #465
    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 disneydude View Post
    Attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.
    If the people don't possess militarily effective firearms, how do you expect them to be able to form a well functioning militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state?

  6. #466
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    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.
    so a seven round limitation-which was based on nothing more than it was less than ten-is OK

    at what point IN YOUR OPINION-does the limitation violate the amendment?

  7. #467
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    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.
    anyone who actually understands the constitution and supports the bill of rights would cry about any absolute possession restrictions on firearms--that is true. because firearms are clearly protected

    but we don't cry about USE restrictions-such as banning firing a pistol in a public library or shooting deer in a municipal park or using your 12 bore to smack pigeons on Times Square

    those sort of restrictions are clearly legitimate. what is illegitimate is a governmental unit issuing certain firearms to their own CIVILIAN employees and then claiming that the same firearms have "no legitimate purpose whatsoever" when owned by other civilians

  8. #468
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    Just like left wingnuts got bat**** crazy over 30 kids but support abortion while ignoring alcohol and drug related deaths among kids.
    most of them don't care about the kids-you don't see them making a big stink over all the poor black kids slain each month in Dem controlled anti gun Chicago. They cannot use the deaths of those kids to either bash the NRA, the GOP or appeal to the upper middle class white soccer moms who cannot identify with black children whose parents are drug dealers or hs dropouts.

  9. #469
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.

    Moronic post alert

    if those were real M16 automatic rifles they would be clearly the most protected weapon under our constitution. But CIVILIAN POLICE are issued those things all the time so your comment is just pure psychobabbling ignorant blather

  10. #470
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    so a seven round limitation-which was based on nothing more than it was less than ten-is OK

    at what point IN YOUR OPINION-does the limitation violate the amendment?
    don't have a specific magic number and I doubt the Court does either.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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 47 of 71 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... 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
  •