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 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 112

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

  1. #51
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    152,101

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

    How can a weapon be unsuitable for use in an urban area by honest citizens yet issued to civilian law enforcement officers for use in urban areas?
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  2. #52
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    152,101

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Crime in the large US cities have gone down since the ban..

    Assault weapons in cities is just something you do not need.. On the countryside/rural areas I support them. It should be banned in some states.
    That is moronic-a federal ban cannot make that distinction. Saying because I live in an urban inner city area I cannot own such a gun (as opposed to using it only in the city) is akin to saying those who live in apartments should not be able to own tennis racquets or golf clubs because you cannot use either in an apartment.
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  3. #53
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    152,101

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    maybe its because guns have magical properties to turn even the most law abiding citizen in to kill crazy madmen?
    damn=I own tons and I have only shot one person on 30 years. ANd he went to prison. My guns must be DEFECTIVE
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  4. #54
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    152,101

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    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

    You might check out who funds the research that Cornell does. He is a hard core gun banner who pretends to be a moderate.
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  5. #55
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    How can a weapon be unsuitable for use in an urban area by honest citizens yet issued to civilian law enforcement officers for use in urban areas?
    Breathe, relax, aim, squeeze.

    Now the weapon is suitable for use in urban areas.

    Hi. TOGTFO.

  6. #56
    Counselor

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-07-09 @ 04:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,856

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

    We all know that someday the Right wing that use to be conservatives, will some day try to destroy the constitution and our government.

    We Democrats who are the real heros of America, need to be armed in order to kill the radical fake conservatives of the right, and the GOP.

    The new right wing promotes violence and lies.

    We conservatives-democrats will save America, the constitution and the our future from the death, starvation, and dishonor that Bush and his right wing buddies are promoting.

    To listen to Bush, Cheney, or Rush is the same as listening to Satan.

    Lord Protect our nation from right wing fools and destruction. Bless the United States Of America. In the name of Jesus Christ, AMEN

  7. #57
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Crime in the large US cities have gone down since the ban..

    Assault weapons in cities is just something you do not need.. On the countryside/rural areas I support them. It should be banned in some states.
    lol, my statement about people being misinformed in another thread is sooo true about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    maybe its because guns have magical properties to turn even the most law abiding citizen in to kill crazy madmen?
    seriously...

    I spent a good long time convincing my girlfriend I hadn't turned into a murderous person because I owned guns. It's been a long and hard fight with her over that ****... but she's finally coming around on gun ownership. And she doesn't nag me anymore when I buy toys that go bang.

    What I find funny is their use of the term "assault pistol"... WOW.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

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

    What scares me most about guns, personally, is that I can envision some owners being angry people with issues, and if you insult their honour or do something they don't like, they pull a gun on you. I agree with Jerry when he says the government removing firearms is a power grab, but gun owners themselves could potentially use them as a power grab for something else. I trust most people and think most know what it means to responsibly own a firearm, but people who enter a severe psychological state, like depression, rage, jealousy, etc., will have this easy death weapon available to them. Imagine getting into some kind of domestic dispute and a person pulls a gun on you? This is the fear side of me talking, and the thing I think of. At least if they reached for a knife you could put something between you and them.

    In the context of the United States only, I would not support a weapons ban. People lose sight of the fact that being given the right to have a weapon does not mean being given the right to casual use. Using it on people means your actions are deferred to the law, and wrongful intent means dire consequences. I don't believe that removing guns will reduce crime, it will just change the weapon of choice to something else. Areas that are crime prone are that way due to many different factors, guns are just the means to an end. I've always believed that whatever weapon the police or soldiers can have, common people should be allowed to have as well.

  9. #59
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I thought that you ignored me because I showed in our previous debate that there was.
    You were on ignore. Then you became a moderator, leaving me with no choice but to suffer your inanity.

    Its quite simple:

    The law, not owning a gun, make you part of the militia.
    As a member of the miltiia, there is no legal requirement that you own a gun.

    Thus, you are wrong.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 03-05-09 at 09:04 AM.

  10. #60
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    In the context of the United States only, I would not support a weapons ban. People lose sight of the fact that being given the right to have a weapon does not mean being given the right to casual use. Using it on people means your actions are deferred to the law, and wrongful intent means dire consequences. I don't believe that removing guns will reduce crime, it will just change the weapon of choice to something else. Areas that are crime prone are that way due to many different factors, guns are just the means to an end. I've always believed that whatever weapon the police or soldiers can have, common people should be allowed to have as well.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •