Page 43 of 45 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 442

Thread: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

  1. #421
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,206

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    You're not actually addressing the question, what you're saying is the equivalent of asking "how far can you walk in the woods?" and clearly you can walk all the way through the woods, but you say "ahh, but you can only walk half way, because after that, you'd be walking out of the woods." That's semantics, and it isn't a valid argument. If what you say makes sense, then nothing should be illegal. Drugs are just objects. Land mines are just objects. Enriched plutonium is just an object. Anthrax, smallpox, lightsabers, just objects.

    It has been established over and over again by our legislative, judicial, and executive branch that the second amendment allows for the regulation of firearms. The SCOTUS would not be impressed by your childish semantics, nor would they be swayed by such blatant garbage.



    If only the Dalai Lama owned guns, we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The fact is that if atom bombs are not regulated, then anybody could have them. This is the issue at hand. Certain weapons fall into the wrong hands. We are engaging in a pretty straightforward debate: do the value of their ("assault rifles") legitimate functions outweigh the potential cost of legally manufactured and sold firearms that fall into the hands of psychopaths and mass murderers?

    My argument is that there are no legitimate functions for an assault rifle. Using them for defense is no better than using a pistol for defense. Using them for hunting - same thing (and in many cases, using a bushmaster for hunting or protection would be much less suitable). What does that leave us with? Recreation, and I don't care if people can't shoot them for recreational reasons. And then killing a lot of human beings. So that's my argument. Notice my argument isn't a riddle.
    sure there are legitimate reasons to have 1, you just don't like them. the right to bear arms isn't about hunting, or self defense, it's about keeping the government in its place. the second Amendment makes no statement whatsoever about hunting or self defense, it actually makes reference to maintaining Liberty.

  2. #422
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,206

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Have you ever heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black?
    he doesn't understand the simplist English of course he didn't get that

  3. #423
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,206

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    If only the Dalai Lama owned guns, we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The fact is that if atom bombs are not regulated, then anybody could have them. This is the issue at hand. Certain weapons fall into the wrong hands. We are engaging in a pretty straightforward debate: do the value of their ("assault rifles") legitimate functions outweigh the potential cost of legally manufactured and sold firearms that fall into the hands of psychopaths and mass murderers?
    Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither. The liberty of the people outweighs the false sense of security people pretend laws against guns will create.

    Seems like the realistic solution is focus on the people.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    My argument is that there are no legitimate functions for an assault rifle. Using them for defense is no better than using a pistol for defense. Using them for hunting - same thing (and in many cases, using a bushmaster for hunting or protection would be much less suitable). What does that leave us with? Recreation, and I don't care if people can't shoot them for recreational reasons. And then killing a lot of human beings. So that's my argument. Notice my argument isn't a riddle.
    Your argument is false because there are legitimate reasons to own them. the second amendment makes that clear.

  4. #424
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither. The liberty of the people outweighs the false sense of security people pretend laws against guns will create.

    Seems like the realistic solution is focus on the people.




    Your argument is false because there are legitimate reasons to own them. the second amendment makes that clear.
    the left has never understood the concept of ESTOPPEL. How can a political entity supply its civilian employees with weapons it has determined are the most suitable weapons for civilians to use for self defense against criminals within the jurisdiction of that entity and at the same time claim that no other civilian has any possible legitimate reason to own the same firearms?



  5. #425
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,206

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the left has never understood the concept of ESTOPPEL. How can a political entity supply its civilian employees with weapons it has determined are the most suitable weapons for civilians to use for self defense against criminals within the jurisdiction of that entity and at the same time claim that no other civilian has any possible legitimate reason to own the same firearms?
    the primary purpose of owning a gun is to maintain a free state.

  6. #426
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    the primary purpose of owning a gun is to maintain a free state.
    which is why those who hate the thought of a free state want to ban guns



  7. #427
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,206

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    which is why those who hate the thought of a free state want to ban guns
    they are traitors, enemies of the state .

  8. #428
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,206

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    which is why those who hate the thought of a free state want to ban guns
    I don't really even think they know, if they did it would be trying to do it.

  9. #429
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,583

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    sure there are legitimate reasons to have 1, you just don't like them. the right to bear arms isn't about hunting, or self defense, it's about keeping the government in its place. the second Amendment makes no statement whatsoever about hunting or self defense, it actually makes reference to maintaining Liberty.
    The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's all it says. Courts and legislators have agreed for hundreds of years that the right to keep and bear arms will be protected, but regulated. That's where we're at. What to regulate, how much to regulate. Your arguments are so off the mark it blows my mind.

    You are pretty much coming out and saying this, so let's just put it out there: you think that one day you might need to fight a war against the government. You want to have lots of guns when "the war" comes. Listen, dude, it's so ridiculous. You want to be able to defeat the government when "the war" comes? Better start stocking up on lots of grenades, land mines, and helicopters. If you want to argue that military weapons should be legal to own, you need a rational purpose, not one based on paranoid delusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither. The liberty of the people outweighs the false sense of security people pretend laws against guns will create.
    Your argument is false because there are legitimate reasons to own them. the second amendment makes that clear.
    I'm not "you people," I'm me. I don't feel unsafe, nor does anybody else I know. I can wake up and go to bed at night with the knowledge that there is a .00000000001% chance that somebody will try to kill me. That's the primary reason that I don't accept the argument that a handgun won't do for self defense or any other reason.

    And the second amendment obviously doesn't "make clear" that assault rifles have a legitimate purpose. That's the biggest load of gibberish I've heard from you yet. I won't even expound upon that because I think it's pretty obvious.
    A working class hero is something to be

  10. #430
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    how many congressmen or senators would propose some sort of draconian nastiness if they knew 3 for 4 million citizens armed with AR 15s or 30-06 deer rifles with 12 power scopes made terminating their tenure in office "with extreme prejudice" their major goal in life?



Page 43 of 45 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 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
  •