View Poll Results: What do you think about putting stricter regulations on bullets rather than guns?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    3 7.14%
  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    34 80.95%
  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    4 9.52%
  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    0 0%
  • Other

    1 2.38%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Bullet Control

  1. #51
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,976

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cilogy View Post
    Ok, now that many people have thrown some stones at me, let me pick them up and set them aside.

    I think we are slowly reaching the tipping point in gun violence. Something has to be done. Am I the one to decide? No. I don't want to be.

    I don't think we should ban bullets or or guns, but I think increasing the prices on bullets rather than guns would work better. Now, I am not offering this suggestion as a way to "sneakily bypass the 2nd amendment," but more as a way to stop gun violence from going out of control.

    That's just what I think. I have a right to an opinion too.


    So you want to tax guns and ammo so that only the rich can afford guns. Interesting idea.


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  2. #52
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,976

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I love how you leave out the first part of the text of the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and then argue that it is "crystal clear".

    While I don't favor gun control, just like much of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation and is certainly not as "crystal clear" as you would claim.

    Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.



    It's clear to those who are honest about the 2nd amendment.


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM"]YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment[/ame]


    Please educate yourself.


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  3. #53
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    So you want to tax guns and ammo so that only the rich can afford guns. Interesting idea.
    Nothing wrong with letting the rich have guns. After all, they can afford armed security anyway-- assuming they're not also in government, in which case we pay for their armed security for them.

    It's the rest of us who have to worry about it.

  4. #54
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,618

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Sure it does. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, part of which is the use of that right in personal self-defense. It may have been done so that said right can always be exercised collectively, but to ensure that, they protected the right at the individual level.
    Yet it never mentions "personal self-defense" whatsoever, it specifies the right to bear arms in the context of national defense, those militias that are noted as an essential part of the nation. You're putting words into the founding father's mouths and asserting that self-defense was part of their intent when, if you just read the words that they wrote, it doesn't appear.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  5. #55
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Yet it never mentions "personal self-defense" whatsoever, it specifies the right to bear arms in the context of national defense, those militias that are noted as an essential part of the nation. You're putting words into the founding father's mouths and asserting that self-defense was part of their intent when, if you just read the words that they wrote, it doesn't appear.
    Two things:
    1. The 2nd Amendment does not "specify" the right to keep and bear arms, it acknowledges the right's natural existence and declares it inviolate.
    2. The 2nd Amendment justifies said declaration by pointing out the necessity of an armed population for the "security of a free State." The virtue of armed citizens is thus clearly not just protecting the nation from foreign foes, but protecting the nation's liberty as well. Self defense is the ultimate expression of personal liberty.

  6. #56
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Yet it never mentions "personal self-defense" whatsoever, it specifies the right to bear arms in the context of national defense, those militias that are noted as an essential part of the nation.
    The 2nd protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
    "The right to keep and bear arms" covers more than just service in the miltia.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,618

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The 2nd protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
    "The right to keep and bear arms" covers more than just service in the miltia.
    It mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS THE SECOND HALF OF A SENTENCE! You don't get to ignore the first half of the sentence because it doesn't get you what you want.

    I can't believe I have to point that out.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  8. #58
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,968

    Re: Bullet Control

    And you don't get to call the militia clause the operative, functional part of the Amendment just to get what YOU want.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    It mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS THE SECOND HALF OF A SENTENCE! You don't get to ignore the first half of the sentence because it doesn't get you what you want.

    I can't believe I have to point that out.
    Correction--you can disregard the entirety of that "first half". The independent clause of the sentence reads as follows: "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The first part of the sentence is neither independent or subordinate clause. The particple "being necessary to the security of a free State" is either descriptive of "A well regulated militia" or "the right (of the people)...."

    If the latter, it merely justifies the importance of the right to bear arms and explicates why is must not be infringed upon by government.

    If the former, then the noun phrase "a well regulated Militia" is positioned as synonymous with and equivalent to "the people"--which again explicates the importance of not infringing upon the right.

    In all cases, the independent clause stands on its own: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    (I am now absolutely convinced that schools need to bring back diagramming sentences to instruction in the English language )

  10. #60
    Pathetic Douchebag
    Cilogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-10-14 @ 03:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,587

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    So you want to tax guns and ammo so that only the rich can afford guns. Interesting idea.
    You like it?


Page 6 of 8 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
  •