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 8 of 22 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 220

Thread: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

  1. #71
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    09-24-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Oh, you took ALL my fun away...
    Sorry. But don't worry, I see a yeah but.....yeah but......response coming soon.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #72
    Hi
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    26,258

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    There is no need for a Constitutional "Amendment". The issue of assault weapons hasn't come in front of the court. An amendment would only be required if they place a ban on assault weapons.
    Are you then admitting that these weapons are unrestricted until the constitution is amended? That is why the amending process exists.
    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

  3. #73
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Sorry. But don't worry, I see a yeah but.....yeah but......response coming soon.
    That's OK.

    DD knows he can't support his position that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech supports the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons -- which is why he is doing all that he can to avoid having to address that issue.

  4. #74
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,201

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057895126]You are wishing this was so, but it isn't, and here is why:

    Anyone with a decent civics class under their belt understands that the first ten amendments of the constitution cannot be altered or changed, and that they are individual and inaliable rights, any attemps to limit the protections of these first ten rights must have compelling reasons based on a standard of what is necessary and proper. Compelling reasons for fighting words, incitement, and incendiary speech are an immediate, provable, clear, and present danger to the public in the form of ensuing chaos stemming from the utterance (action)of the words. In the scenario that you wish the supreme court to mis-interpret the second using the same standard, there is no clear and present danger inherent in simply possessing a fire arm, the action of mis-use and you would have a point, but we already have laws in place to do that, such as murder, negligent homicide, unlawful discharge, public nuisance, etc. therefore a pre-emptive ban would be an unnecessary and thus unlawful infringement of a god-given, hence inaliable right. Certain justices always get that wrong whether intentionally or unintentionally, but the effect would be the same.
    If assault weapons existed then they would be protected because the first is all encompassing and shall not be infringed.

    That is not a compelling argument in that they would have access to the same firearms as the general populace, likewise protected by the very same second amendment, secondly, what would the weapon class in question be? are we talking about assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, rifles, shotguns. Let's talk about real weapons and not the "assault weapons".

    Any court that needs to invent compelling reason is wrong, the language is simple.

    I'm sorry....but your post displays that your understanding of Constitutional analysis doesn't go much beyond your high school "civics" class.

    There are multiple layers of analysis depending on the level of the right infringed upon and the class of individuals infringed upon.

    If the right is "fundamental" or the class of individuals determined to be a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringment must be compelling

    If the right is not "fundamental" or the class of individuals is not a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringement need only be "legitimate".

    There is an intermediate level that they court sometimes engages in for rights that aren't quite "fundamental" or for certain classes that are not traditionally determined to be "suspect classes" - an intermediate level for which the level of govermental interest required to justify the infringement must be "important".

    unless you understand this multiple level, fairly complex process, its difficult to debate the issue.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  5. #75
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,201

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That's OK.

    DD knows he can't support his position that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech supports the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons -- which is why he is doing all that he can to avoid having to address that issue.
    See post #66...and #74 should help you as well.

    Show all that are following that you can actually make the argument....

    What are you waiting for Goobie....prove me wrong and show that you can support your argument......I'm still waiting.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  6. #76
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,201

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Are you then admitting that these weapons are unrestricted until the constitution is amended? That is why the amending process exists.
    No...they are unrestricted right now because no ban has been placed or ruled upon by the Supreme Court. The "amendment" process is unnecessary until there is a ban, the ban is determined to be "constitutional" and someone seeks to overturn the ban.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  7. #77
    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
    See post #66...and #74 should help you as well.
    I'll take that as your concession of the point -- that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech indeed does NOT support the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons.

    So then, we're back to where we started:

    Arguing that 'its OK to ban 'assault weapons' because you will still be able to buy handguns and shotguns' is no different that arguing that 'it is Ok to ban speech that criticizes the President because you can still criticize the rest of the govenment'.

    Disagree? Why?

  8. #78
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    09-24-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post


    I'm sorry....but your post displays that your understanding of Constitutional analysis doesn't go much beyond your high school "civics" class.
    Good try there cochise, but that civics class example was set out to show how easy the concepts are. I was stating college level poli-sci theorum, taught by political modern liberals and centrists. You fail.

    There are multiple layers of analysis depending on the level of the right infringed upon and the class of individuals infringed upon.
    That part you are actually right on, but you are wrong on the level of protection you are trying to apply, you are trying to use the most outer circle, that being limited to no protection as applied to harmful speech or useless speech and applying it incorrectly to the harmless action of simple posession of certain firearms, which can harm no one and has the same usage as other firearms, hence, you are wrong, as would anyone else be trying to use that standard/

    If the right is "fundamental" or the class of individuals determined to be a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringment must be compelling
    Glad you're starting to see the truth, now, what's the compelling interest of marking certain guns illegal, especially since almost none of them are used in crime.

    If the right is not "fundamental" or the class of individuals is not a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringement need only be "legitimate".
    The bill of rights are fundamental, always have been considered such, so therefore the onus is on government to prove a credible argument, which it has never done.

    unless you understand this multiple level, fairly complex process, its difficult to debate the issue.
    I've already shown how you mis-apply it, and you haven't covered anything I haven't known for years, so what's your point?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #79
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-08-16 @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    (snip)

    -Assault rifles are already fully-automatic
    No they aren't and statements like this contribute to the anti gun 's propaganda.
    From the ashes.

  10. #80
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,201

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I'll take that as your concession of the point -- that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech indeed does NOT support the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons.

    So then, we're back to where we started:

    Arguing that 'its OK to ban 'assault weapons' because you will still be able to buy hansguns and shotguns' is no different that arguing that 'it is Ok to ban speech that criticizes the President because you can still criticize the rest of the govenment'.

    Disagree? Why?

    I'm beginning to think that you and our old friend "Stinger" are the same person...because you both engage in the same old "Shuffle".

    Why can't you even attempt to make the argument that assault weapons are a "fundamental" right and support your argument under Constitutional analysis.
    You haven't even given it a shot....you've simply been shuffling through your same old song and dance.

    Banning speech the way you define it would not meet Constitutional muster because there is no legitimate let alone compelling reason to ban it.
    I have given you compelling reasons that the government could use to justify banning assault weapons even if it were determined to be a fundamental right, which is likely would not be. There certainly are less "compelling" reasons that otherwise would be deemed "important" or "legitimate" under lower standards.

    So, Goobie....are you going to make an attempt to justify your position and put it through Constitutional analysis....or are you going to continue with your silly Stinger shuffle?
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •