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 14 of 32 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 313

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

  1. #131
    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 Maxientius View Post
    and u said it must be interpreted as the founding fathers meant it.
    I did? When?

    Did they have nukes? nope.
    Relevance?

  2. #132
    Student Maxientius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The United States of America
    Last Seen
    03-15-12 @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    207

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

    Lol not you goobie
    Nerv did. I'd quote it but my iphone makes that rather hard. I apologize for your misunderstanding.
    And this debate about nukes is off topic.

  3. #133
    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
    No... the "real" definition is that which is relevant to the issue at hand.
    In the contect of the term as it is used in the 2nd, its definition does not include nukes, rendering irrelevant any argument that includes them.
    yes, so it can't be taken literally. When I was saying that the bill of rights couldn't be taken literally, I meant that it is related to the issue at hand.

    Great. If we believe the same thing, then there is no reason argueing about what you call it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxientius View Post
    i dont debate the second amendment. it was written over 200 years ago. they can cote to amend it to suit their agenda. (they here meaning the Obama administration)
    and this thread has nothing to do with nuclear arms. its "assault weapons". if you wanna talk about nukes go to the israeli thread. im there too so we can still fight, thought your obvious lack of understanding would make it an easy victory for me.
    well luckily for me you don't know what I am arguing or the context of this so you can just be some comedy.

  4. #134
    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 Maxientius View Post
    Lol not you goobie
    Nerv did. I'd quote it but my iphone makes that rather hard. I apologize for your misunderstanding.
    And this debate about nukes is off topic.
    lol yeah we did get off topic

  5. #135
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,252

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Yeah. If we don't take the second amendment literally, by having an interpretation that isn't specifically spelled out in the Second Amendment.

    One of my only comments has been that the second amendment, by itself, doesn't specify what it considers arms to be. We can interpret it as "normal weapons" but that is only because the Bill of Rights shouldn't be taken literally. If the Bill of Rights was taken completely literally, word for word, then nuclear weapons would in fact be allowed by normal citizens.

    I do think that is an accurate interpretation of the Second amendment, (In that I believe its what the founding fathers intended). Despite that, I can still wish that they would change the 2nd amendment to get rid of fully automatic assult weapons. Yes, I am currently supporting something unconstitutional, but that just means I want to change the second amendment.
    Anyway, the reasons for if the second amendment should be altered should at least be discussed enough if we should follow the Bill of Rights on principle, even if there is negative outcomes.
    It's not the 2nd amendment that is in question, but rather a functional categorization of "arms". The Constitution is a literal document, the Bill of Rights is meant to be taken literally; including the 2nd. And it is. It's not debate about what the 2nd amendment says, it's debate on functional category. That's it.
    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."

  6. #136
    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
    yes, so it can't be taken literally.
    It IS taken literally.

    When I was saying that the bill of rights couldn't be taken literally, I meant that it is related to the issue at hand.
    And what you fail to understand that there is a difference bwtween 'taken literally' and 'defining the terms'.

    well luckily for me you don't know what I am arguing or the context of this so you can just be some comedy.
    On the contrary -- you agree that the 2nd covers machineguns, but you want to ban them anyway. You're using the argument that 'the 2nd isnt interpreted literally' to allow you to argue that "arms" covers ALL weapons, and then use THAT to argue that since ALL weapons cannot possibly pe protected, 'the line has to be drawn somewhere, so why not machineguns.'

    Explain how I misunderstand you.

  7. #137
    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 Ikari View Post
    It's not the 2nd amendment that is in question, but rather a functional categorization of "arms". The Constitution is a literal document, the Bill of Rights is meant to be taken literally; including the 2nd. And it is. It's not debate about what the 2nd amendment says, it's debate on functional category. That's it.
    And a debate on the functional catagory is a debate on what the second amendment says. because what something says odviously is about what it means.

    lol This is so pointless to debate on if we are debating about the meaning of the second amendment. that is a waste of time now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It IS taken literally.


    And what you fail to understand that there is a difference bwtween 'taken literally' and 'defining the terms'.
    see above

    On the contrary -- you agree that the 2nd covers machineguns, but you want to ban them anyway. You're using the argument that 'the 2nd isnt interpreted literally' to allow you to argue that "arms" covers ALL weapons, and then use THAT to argue that since ALL weapons cannot possibly pe protected, 'the line has to be drawn somewhere, so why not machineguns.'

    Explain how I misunderstand you.
    You aren't reading what I am writing. I have never said that second amendment won't be violated by banning machineguns. I have never said otherwise.

    Even though i know outlawing machineguns violates the second, I am still support banning automatic machineguns for my political purposes. I am not going to pursue a strict interpretation of the Constitution in how I would vote if I was a politician.

    I would support people agreeing to follow the 10th amendment and make the 2nd clearer, but I wouldn't sacrifice my issues for that.

  8. #138
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,252

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    And a debate on the functional catagory is a debate on what the second amendment says. because what something says odviously is about what it means.

    lol This is so pointless to debate on if we are debating about the meaning of the second amendment. that is a waste of time now.
    What do you mean now? These arguments have been a waste of time since post 1. I've shown you were mistake with the 9th amendment and with the "Constitution isn't literal" thing. You're the one who keeps trying to misuse it to further your argument. Waste of time now...HA. The whole "not literal" and 9th amendment thing was a waste of time from the very beginning.
    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. #139
    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 Ikari View Post
    What do you mean now? These arguments have been a waste of time since post 1. I've shown you were mistake with the 9th amendment and with the "Constitution isn't literal" thing. You're the one who keeps trying to misuse it to further your argument. Waste of time now...HA. The whole "not literal" and 9th amendment thing was a waste of time from the very beginning.
    ? we both agree that there needs to be a form of interpretation of the Bill of Rights. that Greats I think that means that we agree with the substance of our arguements.

    Yes, you were right about the 9th amendment though.

    But hey, if you want to argue with me for the sake of argueing go right ahead....
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-29-09 at 04:13 PM.

  10. #140
    Student Maxientius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The United States of America
    Last Seen
    03-15-12 @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    207

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    ? we both agree that there needs to be a form of interpretation of the Bill of Rights. that Greats I think that means that we agree with the substance of our arguements.

    Yes, you were right about the 9th amendment though.

    But hey, if you want to argue with me for the sake of argueing go right ahead....
    dude, there is a form of interpretation. First, its taken as what it says. There is no deeper context.
    Also, the government can interpret it how they see fit. how are you going to stop them?

Page 14 of 32 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •