View Poll Results: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    20 57.14%
  • No

    15 42.86%
Page 15 of 22 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 220

Thread: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

  1. #141
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The generic reasoning behind a want for any ban is that there are some weapons for which there is no legitimate interest and that the government has justification for banning because it puts our society at risk.
    The reasoning is flawed, the first reason being that a right does not depend on necessity or legitimacy, a right is inate. Secondly, all guns serve a purpose and there are really only three variances in guns, how the firing primer is ignited, rimfire, centerfire, and muzzle fire, any other differences are based on range and rate of fire, many guns can be modified as per rate of fire by someone knowledgable enough to change the springs at the trigger mechanism and range can be changed by powder load, all without the government knowing the difference. Third, the government has no justification in banning anything that is not provably necessary and proper as pertaining to rights, something they have failed in proving immensely throughout the history of anti-second law.
    If you take the anti-gun/ban position --- ANY gun puts our society at risk.
    And yet, cars kill more people statistically if you include all fatalities including suicide, murder, accidental shootings, and personal protection, if you take out the irrelevant data, such as suicide, defensive homicide, and accidents, the ratio shrinks even further, so what exactly could be a compelling reason for public safety over cars, airplanes, etc.
    If you take the pro-gun/anti-ban position ---NO weapon should be restricted.
    We have the constitution, founders writings, statistics, and the Bill of Rights on our side, so the onus isn't on us.

    The bigger question is what falls within the gray areas.
    There is no grey area, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and the Bill of Rights are individual rights, as written by the founders. That is as black and white in plain english as it gets.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #142
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,207

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    -Your- ignorace will not allow you to have a meaningful discussion.

    Your ignorance is not MY fault; don't blame ME for your unwillingness to learn what you need to learn to carry on an intelligent conversation.

    My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.

    If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
    If you disagree with that position, explain why.

    Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
    At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  3. #143
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,207

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057895320]
    The reasoning is flawed, the first reason being that a right does not depend on necessity or legitimacy, a right is inate. Secondly, all guns serve a purpose and there are really only three variances in guns, how the firing primer is ignited, rimfire, centerfire, and muzzle fire, any other differences are based on range and rate of fire, many guns can be modified as per rate of fire by someone knowledgable enough to change the springs at the trigger mechanism and range can be changed by powder load, all without the government knowing the difference. Third, the government has no justification in banning anything that is not provably necessary and proper as pertaining to rights, something they have failed in proving immensely throughout the history of anti-second law.
    And yet, cars kill more people statistically if you include all fatalities including suicide, murder, accidental shootings, and personal protection, if you take out the irrelevant data, such as suicide, defensive homicide, and accidents, the ratio shrinks even further, so what exactly could be a compelling reason for public safety over cars, airplanes, etc.
    We have the constitution, founders writings, statistics, and the Bill of Rights on our side, so the onus isn't on us.

    There is no grey area, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and the Bill of Rights are individual rights, as written by the founders. That is as black and white in plain english as it gets.
    The Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

    Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.
    Last edited by disneydude; 01-22-09 at 02:22 PM.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  4. #144
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
    At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.
    The problem here is that you say handguns and rifles cannot be banned.

    Every firearm is a handgun or rifle.

    Whether it is a long-rifle, sub-gun or Carbine if you will, small arms I.E. Pistols and sub-compact pistols.

    They are all under those two definitions. This is not an issue for myself or anyone else who supports the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest, it is however, an issue for those who would like to see any gun banned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    From:
    Urban Policy

    Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
    So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.
    Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...
    There is no 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

  6. #146
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,030

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Infringed has a very definite meaning. If the Constitution isn't B&W, then why did Obama retake the oath of office?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  7. #147
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post

    The Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

    Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.
    It is black and white actually.

    The "grey area" as you so put it, comes into play when people try to bend the intent of the constitution. It is not the fault of the writing or the founding fathers, it is the fault of society.
    Last edited by Shewter; 01-22-09 at 02:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

  8. #148
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment.
    Psst... your ignorace is showing.
    The definition of "arms" ans used in the 2nd has been addressed in 2 SCotUS rulings.

    My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.

    If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
    If you disagree with that position, explain why.

  9. #149
    Hi
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
    At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.
    This link defines what arms are pretty well.

    BustedTees*-*Second*Amendment
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #150
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shewter View Post
    The problem here is that you say handguns and rifles cannot be banned.

    Every firearm is a handgun or rifle.
    You are, of course, right.

    This is what happens when people discuss things they know nothing about.

Page 15 of 22 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •