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 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 313

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

  1. #101
    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 Goshin View Post
    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.
    good answer

    I am just thinking how I wish the Second Amendment was specific enough to be taken literally, by having your list, or at least saying that "arms" in the second amendment were only "normal arms."

    Also, it is important to remember that when this country was created, there was no real inherent advantage that professional soldiers could have over normal citizens with guns. But today, we need planes, destroyer, aircraft carrieers and nukes to stay competitive. We have no way to defend ourselves from another nation just bombing us to destroy our economy (or something else short of invasion) with just a civilian army.

    but I agree, in that with a heavy armed population, there is no real way to be invaded. (unless there was some insane types of biological or radiation weapons)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    Heres the 9th amendment. lets look at it in its actual form.

    Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

    Since in the Constitution people have a right to life (in how I can't yell fire in a burning building) however, the 9th amendment also says that those rights can't be used to deny my other rights. I have a right to freedom of speech, however that right would violate the rights of others to life.

    Am I missing something?

    Don't worry, im not a complete Constitution trasher (compared to most people anyway) but this condridiction is interesting. we should at least aknowedge this

  2. #102
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    so by that logic you are for banning:


    cigarettes
    suv's
    motorcycles
    excessivly large tv's
    buffets
    fatty foods


    i can go on ad nauseum if you would like.




    If they are more efficient at "murder" then by the same logic, would they not be also more efficient at preventing murder?
    How do buffets help you defend yourself? For those that saw Gross Point Blank, we obviously understand that an excessively large TV can be used as a defensive weapon though... but the buffet? And fatty foods?
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  3. #103
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,476

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    good answer

    I am just thinking how I wish the Second Amendment was specific enough to be taken literally, by having your list, or at least saying that "arms" in the second amendment were only "normal arms."
    It is more than sufficiently specific. If there is any question, one need only look to the other writings of the Founders to find their original intent. They clearly intended it to be an individual right, of the people, to possess and carry whatever arms were commonplace to the regular infantry, or needful for common purposes like hunting, sport and self-defense.

    Also, it is important to remember that when this country was created, there was no real inherent advantage that professional soldiers could have over normal citizens with guns. But today, we need planes, destroyer, aircraft carrieers and nukes to stay competitive. We have no way to defend ourselves from another nation just bombing us to destroy our economy (or something else short of invasion) with just a civilian army.

    but I agree, in that with a heavy armed population, there is no real way to be invaded. (unless there was some insane types of biological or radiation weapons)
    I'm not saying we don't need a standing army, and a regular Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. My chief point is that the Founders never intended the "regular army" and "select militia" (ie Nat'l Guard, Reserve) to be sufficiently large and powerful enough to totally overwhelm the "unorganized militia" (the whole body of the people).

    Though I am torn on the subject, I'm reasonably sure they didn't intend us to play "world cop" and have all these "foreign entanglements" and overseas military committments either. I struggle with this one, since there are overseas military actions I consider important to our security, but I think we've probably taken it overboard too.

    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.'.."

  4. #104
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,910

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post

    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.
    So few people actually get that. As I stated earlier, at the time of the nation's founding, a regular citizen if they had the means could by any weapon available, whether it was a canon, a warship, or for that matter, an entire navy.

    One could certainly argue that the rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer practical in today's world. However, if thats the case, then they should seek to have the constitution amended. As it is, a person can't just ignore the fact that the constitution clearly states that the people have a near absolute right to bear arms.

    Also, being I am fairly libertarian on a lot of issues, I would be surprised if this was the only thing we agreed on.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  5. #105
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    So few people actually get that. As I stated earlier, at the time of the nation's founding, a regular citizen if they had the means could by any weapon available, whether it was a canon, a warship, or for that matter, an entire navy.

    One could certainly argue that the rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer practical in today's world. However, if thats the case, then they should seek to have the constitution amended. As it is, a person can't just ignore the fact that the constitution clearly states that the people have a near absolute right to bear arms.

    Also, being I am fairly libertarian on a lot of issues, I would be surprised if this was the only thing we agreed on.
    I have argued this aspect exhaustively with many people on this board who refuse to accept this position.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  6. #106
    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'?

    Since in the Constitution people have a right to life (in how I can't yell fire in a burning building) however, the 9th amendment also says that those rights can't be used to deny my other rights. I have a right to freedom of speech, however that right would violate the rights of others to life.
    No. This is completely wrong. As James Madison said when introducing the Ninth Amendment:

    "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

    The Ninth Amendment simply states that the listing of rights in the Constitution is not exhaustive. If you are going to cite the Constitution as justification for your positions you would do well to familiarize yourself with its history.

  7. #107
    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 Goshin View Post
    It is more than sufficiently specific. If there is any question, one need only look to the other writings of the Founders to find their original intent. They clearly intended it to be an individual right, of the people, to possess and carry whatever arms were commonplace to the regular infantry, or needful for common purposes like hunting, sport and self-defense.
    Yeah, I think we can tell what the founding fathers did mean by looking at many of their writing. by that I can tell that they were very pro gun. Im sure they would want there to be "assult weapons" that im bitching about. But since they were not very specifc in the second amendment, there is no way to tell what they would have thought about more advances weapons. (nukes, or other weapons)

    A law should not be based on cross referencing what is in the books, and what the people who wrote the law were saying at certain times.

    The laws themselves should be specific. And if they aren't clear, then they should be made clear. For instance, the first amendment should say that no speech can be infringed upon unless it causes direct harm to others. But it doesn't.

    I'm not saying we don't need a standing army, and a regular Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. My chief point is that the Founders never intended the "regular army" and "select militia" (ie Nat'l Guard, Reserve) to be sufficiently large and powerful enough to totally overwhelm the "unorganized militia" (the whole body of the people).

    Though I am torn on the subject, I'm reasonably sure they didn't intend us to play "world cop" and have all these "foreign entanglements" and overseas military committments either. I struggle with this one, since there are overseas military actions I consider important to our security, but I think we've probably taken it overboard too.

    G.
    No way to tell for sure. Times have changed alot.

    But they said many times that they wanted the US to be like Switerland, by being neutral and having a highly armed population. Im sure they would be against us policing the world.

    I do think they would be fine with temporary military establishments. (maybe simillar to how Jefferson dealth with the Barbary pirates)
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-28-09 at 09:08 PM.

  8. #108
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,910

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I have argued this aspect exhaustively with many people on this board who refuse to accept this position.
    At least half if not more of the people that claim to be Libertarians are actually just typical hard core Republicans that think its cool to call themselves Libertarian. So for them to accept that position, they then could no longer support the huge defense budgets of the federal government. So its much easier for them to tell themselves they need an assault weapon to defend themselves against a government that spends well over half a trillion dollars a year on its military (a military that would squash them like a bug), then it would be to accept the true constitutional position of defense of the nation by its people rather than a large standing army. No government can become tyrannical when the primary means of defending the nation lies with the people rather than the government.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  9. #109
    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 Ethereal View Post
    No. This is completely wrong. As James Madison said when introducing the Ninth Amendment:

    "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

    The Ninth Amendment simply states that the listing of rights in the Constitution is not exhaustive. If you are going to cite the Constitution as justification for your positions you would do well to familiarize yourself with its history.
    charming...

    I am just following what the 9th amendment says... if you want to explain why you think that interpretation works, then I would like to hear it. I just don't see how he is interpreting the 9th amendment that way.

    As everyone says, I thought we need to take the Bill of Rights literally... and we wouldn't have this problem if we understood that they aren't literal, word for word.

    And just to make sure that was the right quotation, I can't see the context of the quote of him reffereing specifically to the 9th amendment. He could be talking about something different.

  10. #110
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,476

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    charming...

    I am just following what the 9th amendment says... if you want to explain why you think that interpretation works, then I would like to hear it. I just don't see how he is interpreting the 9th amendment that way.

    As everyone says, I thought we need to take the Bill of Rights literally... and we wouldn't have this problem if we understood that they aren't literal, word for word.

    And just to make sure that was the right quotation, I can't see the context of the quote of him reffereing specifically to the 9th amendment. He could be talking about something different.
    Interpretation? Dude, this was the guy who wrote it.

    Not to mention, I don't know where or when you went to school, but when I was in school this was the normal understanding of what the 9th and 10th Amendments were for.
    Last edited by Goshin; 04-28-09 at 09:18 PM.

    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.'.."

Page 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •