View Poll Results: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes (see follow-up questions)

    8 15.09%
  • No

    45 84.91%
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 112

Thread: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

  1. #41
    User Wyrmdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Holladay, UT, USA
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    102

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post

    Nice try at a cop-out, but it doesn't fly.

    When you vote for a candidate you are supporting ALL of his policies because you are putting ALL of those policies in office.

    You voted for Obama, that means you support gun control.
    That's just silly. The odds of any individual agreeing with 100% of a candidate's stances and actions has got to approach zero. We get two viable choices each election cycle and I can't even imagine a scenario where I found a candidate I was 100% in agreement with.

    It is possible to support a candidate without supporting all their positions.

    Politics are not zero-sum.
    Marc Jentzsch

    "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."

    - Socrates, from Plutarch, Of Banishment

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Intent matters. A man should not be jailed simply because he made an honest mistake in the heat of the moment.
    Sure.

    He can go to jail for manslaughter, not murder.

    Because intent counts, but there's still a body on the floor.

    Stupidity should be punished, also.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrmdog View Post
    That's just silly. The odds of any individual agreeing with 100% of a candidate's stances and actions has got to approach zero. We get two viable choices each election cycle and I can't even imagine a scenario where I found a candidate I was 100% in agreement with.

    It is possible to support a candidate without supporting all their positions.

    Politics are not zero-sum.
    I think that you are discounting those mindless zealots that you see during campaigns screaming and freaking while waving banners and wearing buttons... I think that those people support their candidate 100% on every single issue... period.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  4. #44
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    03-10-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Sure.

    He can go to jail for manslaughter, not murder.

    Because intent counts, but there's still a body on the floor.

    Stupidity should be punished, also.
    For the man murdered it matters little what the punishment of the killer is..
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  5. #45
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    No no, Bodhi's argument has merit. After all we are all the "militia" according to US law.


    He gets it backwards though. In order to have a militia in good working order, we cant restrict all of the people from owning arms.

    Not the other way around.
    I don't think that we should restrict guns... I think that people who own guns should be held accountable according to the Constitution, and that is that they are part of the "militia". All citizens are not a part of the militia, but those that own guns are. It is a default position...
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    For the man murdered it matters little what the punishment of the killer is..
    But if there is no intent, there is no murder.
    It can be something else... negligent homocide, manslaughter, etc.
    It just is not a murder...
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    There's no support for this position at all. Your membership in the militia is not dependent on you owning any sort of firearm, and vice-versa.
    I thought that you ignored me because I showed in our previous debate that there was.

    A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America by Saul Cornell ? Here is a description.

    Description
    Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong.

    Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right-- an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia.

    He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders.

    Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century.
    The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts.

    Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century.


    Oxford University Press: OUP USA Home



    English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government , the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

    These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

    Valparaiso Univ. Law Review

    THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  8. #48
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

    Confederation & Constitution: Federalist Papers: Federalist No.46
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  9. #49
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    "For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

    "It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings."

    --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813



    "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

    --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.



    "[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms."

    --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.


    "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."

    --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.



    "I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."

    --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  10. #50
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    01-07-15 @ 10:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,067

    Re: Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I confront your hypocrisy and you begin with the personal attacks.

    Typical liberal bull****.



    Nice try at a cop-out, but it doesn't fly.

    When you vote for a candidate you are supporting ALL of his policies because you are putting ALL of those policies in office.

    You voted for Obama, that means you support gun control.
    Typical Jerry bull****.

    But hey, it's your reality, you can club baby liberals all you want. And you would have really kick ass friends there too!

    Enjoy your delusion Jerry.
    Hi. TOGTFO.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •