View Poll Results: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    6 11.11%
  • No, because...

    46 85.19%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 313

Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  1. #91
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,269

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally. As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today. The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights
    No, the Constitution is very literal. The Constitution says that the enumerated rights are not the only rights and that those rights not listed are still reserved by the People and the government may not infringe upon them. That is the point of the 9th amendment, what you're saying is a complete misrepresentation of the 9th. Read the anti-federalist papers, the reason for the 9th amendment is in there.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #92
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    You are correct that not all speech is protected under freedom of speech.

    However, once again... that is only because we aren't taking the first amendment literally.
    Not at all. "Freedom of speech" has inherent limits; the 1st does not protect anything outside those limits. And so, the constitution is interpreted literally, as everything that IS inluded under "freedom of speech" IS protected.

    What is your definition of "arms"?
    This has been described in US v Miller and Heller v DC.

    'Arms" means a weapon that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

    This clearly covers any firearm you care to mention.

    The military currently, or has been trying to develope in the past a long range rocket launcher that fires nuclear weapons.
    Davey Crockett.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...nuclear_device)

    I have said this many times. My reason for banning assult weapons isn't based specifically on the Constitution. Its based on which weapons have no other value except for killing many people at once.
    Well then - your argument fails at "has no other value", in that:
    1: There's nothing inherently wrong with having the capacity to kill many at once
    2: You have to show that these weapons have "no other value".
    3: You have to show how these weapons are not covered as 'arms" under the 2nd.

    Fair enough. Whenever I have talked about "assult weapons" I meant completely automatic weapons. I was thinking that an assult "rifle" would be a semi-automatic.
    Then you are not having the same conversation we are.

  3. #93
    Guru
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Plano
    Last Seen
    03-17-16 @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,062

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Jimmy Carter:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/op...r=2&ref=global

    So:
    Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?
    Jimmy Carter has been incorrect on just about everything since November 4, 1979. No signs of breaking that streak.
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/marvel-war-of-heroes/id536478373?mt=8
    iphone or ipad game

    Use Referral code bfg861256 for a free rare card.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,269

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Not at all. "Freedom of speech" has inherent limits; the 1st does not protect anything outside those limits. And so, the constitution is interpreted literally, as everything that IS inluded under "freedom of speech" IS protected.
    He is confusing some very basics about government and the types of actions a Republic takes. As you say, freedom of speech has inherent limits; all our rights do. That being you may not exercise your rights in such a way as to violate the rights of others; that's the one and only restriction on our rights. This yelling fire crap he keeps spewing is getting old. The act of yelling fire, as has been explained to him a few times now, is illegal because that act infringes upon the rights of others. It's not that people have the right to not hear fire in a crowded movie theater. It's that yelling fire in a crowded movie theater will cause a panic and people can get hurt; for that reason the act of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is illegal. The word "fire" isn't banned, or outlawed, or regulated in the least. You can use it as much as you want so long as you aren't Beavis and Butt-head. It's an actual action which is prohibited because its effects infringe upon the rights of others.

    Owning a gun does not infringe on the rights of others. My personal owning of a gun does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Actions in which I use my gun to infringe upon the rights of others are prohibited and enforced through law and the courts; but owning it in and of itself is not a crime. There is an action beyond ownership which must be taken in order for it to constitute a threat on others' rights.

    And this crap about the Constitution not being literal...enough. It's literal, it's not a work of fiction, it's not figurative, it's not Aesop's fables here. The Constitution very much means everything it says, it's a literal document.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #95
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post


    This has been described in US v Miller and Heller v DC.

    'Arms" means a weapon that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

    This clearly covers any firearm you care to mention.


    Davey Crockett.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...nuclear_device)


    Well then - your argument fails at "has no other value", in that:
    1: There's nothing inherently wrong with having the capacity to kill many at once
    2: You have to show that these weapons have "no other value".
    3: You have to show how these weapons are not covered as 'arms" under the 2nd.


    Then you are not having the same conversation we are.
    I think im done with the discussions on literal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. For clarification, people should look at my post about how the Bill of Rights says that one right, can't be used to infringe upon another.

    It meant that you can't LITEREALLY infringe on freedom of speech to protect someone's safety from a purposefully harmful action.
    This means you can't infringe on my freedom of speech to protect a right to life.




    but when you have your definition of an "arm" then can't a nuclear rocket launcher fit under that catagory of something "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

    I suppose we can then argue what "ordinary military equipment" is.

    hmmmm.... possibly, I can see your point if all types of weapons are considered "ordinary" weapons except for things like biological weapons and nuclear weapons, which I think we agree that they should be illegal to own. But I don't know who would classify what is what.

    I would be curious what people think "ordinary weapons are"
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-28-09 at 04:45 PM.

  6. #96
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,521

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I would be curious what people think "ordinary weapons are"
    1. All small arms and light support weapons that can be carried and operated by a single infantryman, which are tactical in nature (ie not WMDs).
    2. All weapons suitable for purposes of self-defense. (ie handguns, knives).
    3. All weapons suitable for sporting purposes. (ie shotguns, deer rifles.)


    I suppose I could put up with having to get a permit for light support weapons, like SAWs and LAWs. It's a compromise...

    While I disagree with SouthernDemocrat on almost everything, he is right about one thing: the Founders intended the Militia (ie all armed citizens, per many quotes I've posted before) to be the cornerstone of America's defense, and did not intend for us to have a large standing army such as we have today.

    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Thank you, I am fine disagreing on what your rights are. We can discuss that. I am just tired discussion if the Constitution should be taken literally.
    Rights are a natural extension of liberty. I believe Thomas Jefferson defined liberty quite aptly:

    "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

    Here Jefferson is articulating the concept of negative rights. Negative rights are those rights which oblige or require the inaction of others. Simply put, it is the right to be left alone. This is the philosophical cornerstone of rights, and what you are proposing is an explicit violation of these principles.

    No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally.
    As previously stated, this is not a statement I can take seriously. All legal documents are necessarily read literally. The alternative to reading something literally is to read it figuratively or metaphorically - to read legal documents or prescriptions in such a way is patently ridiculous.

    As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today.
    This is not true as the word "violation" implies an act or deed which falls outside the bounds of acceptable conduct. Restricting speech that directly endangers other people is not outside the scope of legitimate government authority, thus the literal meaning of the Constitution is in no way undermined.

    The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights. Therefore, a right to life (related to the yelling in a crowded building) can't be used to violate the first amendment. So in effect, there is a contridiction in the Constitution. That is why it can't be taken literally.
    This is a misinterpretation of the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment simply states that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive listing of rights retained by the people.

    Yes, you can have a semi-automatic rifle.
    Well, as a former Marine infantryman I can tell you that a semi-automatic rifle is just as deadly as an "assault rifle", if not more deadly.

    Let me clarify. when I said weapons that can kill many people without having any other benefit, I meant weapons that could kill many people at one time very quickly.
    A semi-automatic rifle can kill many people at one time very quickly.

    Hell, a handgun can kill many people, it just takes a while, which is why handguns should be legal.
    What difference does it make if a person kills ten people in one minute vs. ten people in thirty seconds?

    Also, you did not answer my question. Why does it make sense to outlaw a rocket launcher?

  8. #98
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,269

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I think im done with the discussions on literal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. For clarification, people should look at my post about how the Bill of Rights says that one right, can't be used to infringe upon another.
    That's a misinterpretation. It is clearly obvious you are doing all you can to avoid my posts, you don't respond to anything. The 9th amendment does not say that one right can not infringe upon another. The 9th amendment says that the People have more rights that just those enumerated by the Bill of Rights, and that those rights are equally reserved by the People. The government may not infringe upon the rights of the individual, and our rights are not limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights

    That's the meaning of the 9th. It's backed by writings by the founders, try reading the anti-federalist papers. For the love of all that is holy, quit regurgitating your lie about the 9th amendment, about the literal nature of the Constitution, and all the other BS arguments you've made which don't hold up to logic and reason.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #99
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,953

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.
    Well, actually, banning assault weapons would be more like banning men having 20 or more penises.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  10. #100
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Well, actually, banning assault weapons would be more like banning men having 20 or more penises.
    And the penises are built to be rape-ready.

    Okay, this analogy has run its course.

Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... 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
  •