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 61 of 71 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #601
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    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
    Life is not that simplistic.
    There is always the intensity of reaction....and the speed of reaction.
    When I was younger, I felt that it was OK for the shop owner to use a Ak-47 in defense of his business.
    Now, with age comes maturity and respect for others in the line of fire.
    IMO, a type of stun gun would suffice.

  2. #602
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    Funny, that's exactly what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment. Why do you think they were wrong/
    The founders were absolutely correct......FOR THE TIMES.....
    We need balance, NOT police without guns, NOT "super armed" crazies, but balance.

  3. #603
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    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...
    Again you seem to have your thinking backwards; it is not incumbent on each citizen to "prove" that they are mentally competent or that they obey the law, it is the responsibility of the gov't after placing charges, based on reasonable suspicion, to get a guilty verdict from a judge/jury and only then declare someone a felon or mentally incompetent. We do have that 100%.

    Pistols, rifles and shorguns are not WMDs, no matter what MSNBC tells you.

    Every criminal is someone's son or daughter.

    There is a better way - do not steal or commit violent crime.

    Our government will have my respect and trust so long as they obey our Constitution, barring that, they deserve neither.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 01-19-13 at 03:06 PM.
    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

  4. #604
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,355

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Life is not that simplistic.
    There is always the intensity of reaction....and the speed of reaction.
    When I was younger, I felt that it was OK for the shop owner to use a Ak-47 in defense of his business.
    Now, with age comes maturity and respect for others in the line of fire.
    IMO, a type of stun gun would suffice.
    I was responding to a post which stated that there should be no restrictions, then listed the desired restrictions.

    IMO means your opinion, and I agree with your right to use a stun gun, a box of rocks, or just rubbing their head and asking nice to not shoot you. But, I do not perceive these as workable methods for me. That is why we have the right to differing opinions, and protection devices.

  5. #605
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    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.

    True
    There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
    A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
    Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?

  6. #606
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,355

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    True
    There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
    A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
    Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?
    Is there any area of the country that is safe? Planes have been blown out of the air, and flown into heavily secured buildings. Gated communities are often the target of home invasions, occupied and not. Automobiles are hijacked in all areas, Kennedy was shot on a city street lined with thousands of citizens. The last two mass murders occurred in gun free, supposedly safe areas. Fort Hood was the subject of a mass murder. And, you are right, a man must be able to protect himself.

    I live in one of the safest neighborhoods in the Richmond area,. When I was working (I'm retired), I often went to very unsafe areas and entered many vacant houses. Yet the only time I have had a need for my weapon was in my front yard. I carry in both areas.

    Your question as to the need for an AK 47 is irrelevant. Aside from the obvious Constitutional issue, the choice of arms is a personal matter. What works for you may or may not work for me.

  7. #607
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,715

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    True
    There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
    A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
    Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?
    Maybe. We have seen where it serves quite well for protection. We have also seen where the handgun and shotgun also serve quite well for protection. But as per the Constitution...that 'assault rifle' isn't for 'personal protection'...it is to preserve freedom, liberty, and the rights of all law abiding citizens GUARANTEED by the Constitution. That assault rifle in the hands of the average everyday US citizen is and was meant to be the last line of defense of Country vs Tyranny.

  8. #608
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,750

    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.
    which was because the defendant (Miller) DIED AND there was no evidence placed before the trial court. You see at the first stage the TC threw out the case on second amendment grounds-it went up to the supremes where MILLER HAD NO ATTORNEY and on remand there was no evidence put in the record-SO shotguns were popular in WWI btw. The Supreme COurt's reasoning was specious and based on a desire to keep FDR happy

  9. #609
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,750

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Life is not that simplistic.
    There is always the intensity of reaction....and the speed of reaction.
    When I was younger, I felt that it was OK for the shop owner to use a Ak-47 in defense of his business.
    Now, with age comes maturity and respect for others in the line of fire.
    IMO, a type of stun gun would suffice.
    you constantly demonstrate how little you know about this subject. You have a stun gun and I have a knife and you will die

    You have a stun gun, and I a firearm you will die even faster

    You have a stun gun and I have a baton, an escrima stick or a sword, you will die almost as fast

    a stun gun is worthless against lethal force

  10. #610
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,750

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    True
    There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
    A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
    Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?
    why shouldn't he have one for protection

    either the man can be trusted with a firearm-be it a bolt action rifle which trained men can kill at 1000 Meters with, a handgun or an AK 47.or he is not trustworthy

    and right now the law bans untrustworthy people from owning any firearms

    and if a man can be trusted to own a 12 Bore shotgun, an AK 47 is equally plausible

    none is more "deadly" than the other. It all comes down to the scenario

Page 61 of 71 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... 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
  •