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 52 of 71 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #511
    American
    cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lakewood,WA
    Last Seen
    10-18-17 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,388
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Nope.


    We've compromised too much already.
    Plus 1 to that.

  2. #512
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    edify us on your expertise of hunting? I suspect-given your politics, you are as contemptuous of hunters as you are of those who own weapons for self defense
    Not really. I used to go hunting all the time when I was a kid. Owned several .22 rifles. I haven't been for years, but have no issue with people who hunt, so long as they don't hunt just for the sport. If they kill to kill, then yeah...I have a problem with that. But hunting for sport and eating the meat is acceptable to me. I also don't have an issue with people having a handgun in their home for protection, as long as they are smart about it.
    <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. #513
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    Correct, and AR-15's are in common use and have a legitimate purpose. So they fit with the Supreme Courts interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
    You are completely missing the point. ANY weapon can fit within the S.C. interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The ISSUE is what legitimate restrictions can be placed on gun ownership and not violate the 2nd Amendment. See...if you understood Con Law, you would know that no right is absolute, even enumerated rights. The issue is whether the government has a legitimate interest in placing restrictions on them. If the government tried to flat out ban all guns, sure that would violate the second amendment. But absent an all out ban, the Supreme Court is likely to uphold some restrictions as long as they do not unduly interfere with the right to bear arms. See. The right to bear arms does not mean ANY arm of your choosing.
    <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>

  4. #514
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Not really. I used to go hunting all the time when I was a kid. Owned several .22 rifles. I haven't been for years, but have no issue with people who hunt, so long as they don't hunt just for the sport. If they kill to kill, then yeah...I have a problem with that. But hunting for sport and eating the meat is acceptable to me. I also don't have an issue with people having a handgun in their home for protection, as long as they are smart about it.
    I tend to have issues with those who think they should tell other people what they keep in their home for protection. what works for an apartment in Manhattan won't work for a rancher in Wyoming who might have coyotes-or worse-attacking his livestock or is 30 minutes away from the nearest sheriff.

  5. #515
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    You are completely missing the point. ANY weapon can fit within the S.C. interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The ISSUE is what legitimate restrictions can be placed on gun ownership and not violate the 2nd Amendment. See...if you understood Con Law, you would know that no right is absolute, even enumerated rights. The issue is whether the government has a legitimate interest in placing restrictions on them. If the government tried to flat out ban all guns, sure that would violate the second amendment. But absent an all out ban, the Supreme Court is likely to uphold some restrictions as long as they do not unduly interfere with the right to bear arms. See. The right to bear arms does not mean ANY arm of your choosing.
    its really hard for a government to claim that a gun has no legitimate purpose whatsoever and thus ban it for most citizens and then issue the same exact gun to its CIVILIAN employees for self defense in an urban or municipal environment. Its really hard to square those two positions with being constitutionally sound or meeting the sort of scrutiny that obvious infringement on the second amendment


    the gun banners never understand that use restrictions (no shooting in a city park or no hunting within city limits etc) are not seen as unconstitutional. ITS POSSESSION restrictions or restrictions on obtaining weapons that are clearly suspect such as telling me I cannot buy more than one gun a month or that I cannot buy and OWN the same weapons Civilian COPS are issued. Those restrictions violate the second

  6. #516
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    the NY law limited cops to 7 rounds too

    and my wife and son sleep peacefully because I stand ready to kill on their behalf if I have to

    and yes, if required I can be quite rough as two criminals can testify to
    My enter family sleeps well knowing we won have to kill anyone any night.

    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.

  7. #517
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    My enter family sleeps well knowing we won have to kill anyone any night.
    the future is unwritten

    Know (and be ready to exercise) your rights

    Joe Strummer with some help from the turtle

  8. #518
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    the future is unwritten

    Know (and be ready to exercise) your rights

    Joe Strummer with some help from the turtle
    Oh, I exercise my rights. Haven't needed a gun to do it either. But, you clearly still have the right to bear arms and defend yourself. That has not changed.

    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.

  9. #519
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    09-30-14 @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    70

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    What's an assault weapon?
    A Baseball Bat

  10. #520
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Oh, I exercise my rights. Haven't needed a gun to do it either. But, you clearly still have the right to bear arms and defend yourself. That has not changed.
    yet you support idiotic magazine limits. I should have the same weapons that my tax dollars supply to cops in my state

Page 52 of 71 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... 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
  •