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 57 of 71 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #561
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Fair enough. I would also like to see his explanation of need.
    need is never a valid argument when dealing with rights

    why do cops NEED a certain weapon

    and if so-you have your answer

    Boo has to prove that honest citizens are a hazard to others-more than cops

    I doubt he can show that

  2. #562
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,359

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    need is never a valid argument when dealing with rights
    But that's not the point (and I noted that, to Boo, already). As Boo noted, "different argument". We want to see what he says.

  3. #563
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    But that's not the point (and I noted that, to Boo, already). As Boo noted, "different argument". We want to see what he says.
    I have already stated the argument hundreds of times and Boo plays dumb. his crap that cops are called to a situation PROVES MY POINT
    when they confront criminals its because they have been warned and informed

    not so a homeowner who has somebody or a group kicking down their door at the middle of the night or a shopkeeper who has 4 armed thugs run into his store

    Night

  4. #564
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    ...you really have no business or expertise in telling me what I need
    (But...But, Boo Hoo Is Army AIRBORN VETERAN Don't C'ha Know)

    Ooo, Underscores His Veracity
    But Then, Frank Murtha Was A Genuine Jar-Head Colonel
    So Ya Just Never Know

  5. #565
    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
    need is never a valid argument when dealing with rights

    why do cops NEED a certain weapon

    and if so-you have your answer

    Boo has to prove that honest citizens are a hazard to others-more than cops

    I doubt he can show that
    If we're going that route, I think the standard s legal purpose. This is what allowed a sawedoff shotgun to be banned. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

    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.

  6. #566
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    If we're going that route, I think the standard s legal purpose. This is what allowed a sawedoff shotgun to be banned. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
    WRONG. Sawed-off shotguns were restricted because the courts said they could find no Military purpose for them.
    Some apes are more equal...

  7. #567
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,359

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I have already stated the argument hundreds of times and Boo plays dumb.
    I noted that as well ("you know well enough..."). Why do you keep pointing out what I already have? We just wanna see what the dude says anyway.

  8. #568
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    WRONG. Sawed-off shotguns were restricted because the courts said they could find no Military purpose for them.

    You have any proof of that being the reason, or just made that up too?

  9. #569
    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
    I have already stated the argument hundreds of times and Boo plays dumb. his crap that cops are called to a situation PROVES MY POINT
    when they confront criminals its because they have been warned and informed

    not so a homeowner who has somebody or a group kicking down their door at the middle of the night or a shopkeeper who has 4 armed thugs run into his store

    Night
    o

    And you are allowed to have a gun and protect yourself. How many do you think you will face? If it is need, then do you think is the only situation a police officer might face? That LA shoot out with bank robbers we talked about for example. Isn't that much different than what you will ver face?

    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.

  10. #570
    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 Dammitboy! View Post
    WRONG. Sawed-off shotguns were restricted because the courts said they could find no Military purpose for them.
    1939 I believe, and the military was discussed then, too be sure. A less than clear verdict. More recently handguns were allowed as they held a legal purpose. Logically, the reverse would hold true.

    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.

Page 57 of 71 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... 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
  •