View Poll Results: Would this compromise be acceptable?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. This isn’t perfect, but no compromise is.

    12 12.90%
  • No. I don’t 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 7 of 71 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #61
    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
    that's a non answer. I want politicians to fear the citizenry

    not the other way around
    You won't do that with guns. Best shot is with the vote.

    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.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,357

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I'm tired of this stupid comment. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only. Killing. That's it. Everything else, clubs, hammers, knives, cars, etc, all have other purposes. Those purposes make them valuable and useful. There is no parallel, until guns can provide something besides violence. Stop with this stupidity.

    The OP's idea solves exactly zero problems.
    I think guns actually have three purposes. Killing is one, presumably you are limiting your argument to the killing of people. The second is sport, which may or may not involve killing, of animals, the vast majority of which provide food, and there is the stopping of other people from killing, either by killing them first, or the mere threat that they might become the victim.

    I no longer hunt, I would not use my weapon for unprovoked taking of another human life. That leave the third. And that is why I carry.

  3. #63
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    they also hate the amount of money the NRA funnels to politicians who tend to oppose their welfare socialist agenda

    later dude
    Still doesn't change the fact that the left is full of people who have an irrational fear and hatred of firearms and that is why they bash the NRA. IF there were liberals who supported the 2nd amendment and one of the largest 2nd amendment rights groups gave money to them, the lefties with the irrational hatred and fear of firearms would still bash that 2nd amendment rights group.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #64
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,892

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You won't do that with guns. Best shot is with the vote.
    Soap box--------> ballot box-------->cartridge box.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  5. #65
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

    Would this be acceptable or not?
    That's not really a compromise. What you just described IS the proposed assault weapons ban - it would only apply to "new" assault weapon purchases. As far as I know no one has ever (seriously) proposed legislation that would compel current owners of assault weapons to hand them over. That would be an enforcement nightmare, and quite frankly unfair to anybody who legally purchased an assault weapon.

    So the "grandfather clause" is really the default assault weapons ban, not a compromise.

  6. #66
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    If that were indeed the case, then the proposed ban would be completely unacceptable to me.

    However, I'll wait to hear from a proponent what is meant by assault weapon.
    i'm not a proponent but the '94 assault weapons ban had very specific definitions of "assault weapons". Silly definitions, but coherent nonetheless.

    Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  7. #67
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Here's a compromise.

    Give us the same weapons the government has access to, but keep explosives regulated.

    There. Compromise.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  8. #68
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    If it was truly about saving lives then the tool used should be irrelevant.
    No, you're missing the point. If the tool is irrelevant, then we never go outside, because there is danger outside of our plastic bubbles. My point is that trying to create equivalence between tools that can be used to kill in addition to their normal functions and tools whose normal and only function is killing is a false equivalence. That's actually my whole point.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    I think guns actually have three purposes. Killing is one, presumably you are limiting your argument to the killing of people. The second is sport, which may or may not involve killing, of animals, the vast majority of which provide food, and there is the stopping of other people from killing, either by killing them first, or the mere threat that they might become the victim.

    I no longer hunt, I would not use my weapon for unprovoked taking of another human life. That leave the third. And that is why I carry.
    1) Killing
    2) Killing things other than humans
    3) Threatening to kill

    Yeah, that's just killing. Killing people, killing animals, and telling people you're going to kill them. Guns do nothing but kill. They have no other purpose. Cars do. Knives do. Maybe some knives are specifically designed for killing and should be treated the same ways guns are, as opposed to a kitchen knife. That's fine. But the point I'm making is that a tool that has no purpose other than for killing automatically should be treated differently from one that has other primary purposes, even if it can later be used to kill. Those would get a separate evaluation more appropriate to their nature.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #69
    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 the_recruit View Post
    i'm not a proponent but the '94 assault weapons ban had very specific definitions of "assault weapons". Silly definitions, but coherent nonetheless.

    Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Thanks. If this is what the gun-grabbers are currently proposing, I must admit I frankly don't understand the danger posed to the public by pistol grips, flash suppressors, and folding stocks. But then again, I'm not a hoplophobe, so their "reasoning" evades me.

  10. #70
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Nope.


    We've compromised too much already.
    That's not compromise.

    If I rob you of your wallet, but I let you keep a dollar while I take the rest, that's not a compromise; that's still you being robbed.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Page 7 of 71 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... 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
  •