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 60 of 71 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #591
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    Why is it in the state's interest to restrict my ability to respond to violence should it come my way?
    I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

    I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.
    Last edited by zstep18; 01-19-13 at 09:13 AM.

  2. #592
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,305

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

    I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.
    But the concept of the second amendment, is that a body of citizen solders might come in conflict with the NYPD, or any other group should they
    become tyrannical. This is a moot point in NYC, as they already limit and register almost all firearms.

  3. #593
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    But the concept of the second amendment, is that a body of citizen solders might come in conflict with the NYPD, or any other group should they
    become tyrannical. This is a moot point in NYC, as they already limit and register almost all firearms.
    And the United States Army may have the potential to become tyrannical as well. Should every citizen have the same weapon capability as the U.S. Army?

    No. That's probably not a good idea.

  4. #594
    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 zstep18 View Post
    Sure, we face the same criminal element, but we, as citizens, do not go up against that same criminal element each and every day.
    That would depend on where you live, where you work, where you shop and what areas you have to travel through each day. In fact, if you are poor, you probably have to deal with the criminal element a lot more than the police do.
    Some apes are more equal...

  5. #595
    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 zstep18 View Post
    And the United States Army may have the potential to become tyrannical as well. Should every citizen have the same weapon capability as the U.S. Army?

    No. That's probably not a good idea.
    Funny, that's exactly what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment. Why do you think they were wrong/
    Some apes are more equal...

  6. #596
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,312

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

    I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.
    Do you understand what you just stated.

    (1) You don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond

    (2) You proceed to place the first restriction

  7. #597
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Here is a proposed 'compromise'.

    I will CONTINUE to not give ANY law abiding citizen an ounce of cause to 'fear' my guns, and the mindless ideologues on the left will stop trying to blame guns for the problem and enact mindless legislation that does NOTHING about the day to day crime and violence in this country.
    Assault Weapon Watch
    Oh...and I WILL support those people that pretend to really really really really really really really really really CARE about violence and will work with you to pass mandatory minimums and lock violent criminals away for 30-40 years on top of increased harsher penalties for committing the crime.

  8. #598
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Sure, we face the same criminal element, but we, as citizens, do not go up against that same criminal element each and every day.

    Law enforcement seeks out that criminal element and tries to eliminate it and protect the city from it. At least that's what they're supposed to do. We, as citizens, don't take calls and purposefully put ourselves into dangerous situations in order to eliminate criminal activity.
    Are you kidding me? The police, contrary to your assertions, do not carry arms to try to eliminate "that criminal element". If you will recall we have this little detail, the presumption of innocense, that makes that a bit illegal.

    Why police carry firearms is precisely why any citzen would, to protect their own life and possibly that of another. While I can legally shoot someone stealing my car (or wallet), a police officer cannot. So, in that sense, a citizen is less limitted in using deadly force than a LEO. You are correct that police are more often called to the scenes of violent crime, yet for each such call they face no different threat than the victim that they seek to assist. It is not the frequency of one's encounters with criminals that a self defense weapon is about, it is the abililty to stop it, which is no different for a LEO or J. Q. Public.

    Simply because you drive less miles than I do makes no difference, we are both expected to have liability insurance. Think of a self defense weapon as that insurance, you hope to never need it, yet it is far better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
    ďThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.Ē ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #599
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

    I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.
    The state MUST restrict a mans reaction to violence.
    Remember the Irish "Civil War" of the previous century ?
    All that bombing and killing - finally ended, but after so many years.
    Violence begets more violence.
    I agree with the handgun only thing for personnel protection...at least for now...in the future...non-lethal only.
    And I agree with the last sentence.....at least for now....maybe in another century will we be able to catch up with the Euros and Brits.

  10. #600
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Are you kidding me? The police, contrary to your assertions, do not carry arms to try to eliminate "that criminal element". If you will recall we have this little detail, the presumption of innocence, that makes that a bit illegal.

    Why police carry firearms is precisely why any citizen would, to protect their own life and possibly that of another. While I can legally shoot someone stealing my car (or wallet), a police officer cannot. So, in that sense, a citizen is less limited in using deadly force than a LEO. You are correct that police are more often called to the scenes of violent crime, yet for each such call they face no different threat than the victim that they seek to assist. It is not the frequency of one's encounters with criminals that a self defense weapon is about, it is the ability to stop it, which is no different for a LEO or J. Q. Public.

    Simply because you drive less miles than I do makes no difference, we are both expected to have liability insurance. Think of a self defense weapon as that insurance, you hope to never need it, yet it is far better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
    I do agree that, in the absence of police, that a man must be able to protect himself, and his family, but, he must also be able to prove that he is mentally competent.....
    This we do not have, thoroughly and 100%...
    Nor do I want anyone "protecting" me using weapons of mass destruction.
    And, by the way, would you be happy in shooting the car thief monly to discover that it was your neighbors teen age son ?
    There must be a better way, and guns are NOT it.
    A thousand years ago ? YES
    A hundred years ago ? Maybe
    Today ? no
    Tomorrow ?
    But, our governments must do things to garner respect and trust.....many have not...

Page 60 of 71 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270 ... 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
  •