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 15 of 32 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 313

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

  1. #141
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,457

    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....
    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.
    You've made it clear that you don't respect the Constitution and would not let it stand in the way of your agenda. Congratulations, you're a politician. Probably a Democrat, but you could be a RINO.

    If you understood the 9th amendment correctly, and the writings of the founders and the general process of SCOTUS decisions, you would understand that where there is a question of what the Constitution means, or interpreting rights, it should always be interpreted in favor of individual liberty, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public intrest, provable and beyond question, in restricting something...and that "prior restraint" will result in great benefit to the citizenry.

    It is provable that shouting "fire!" fraudulently in a crowded theater is overwhelmingly very bad for the public (1st Amd). It is provable that allowing Tom Dick and Harry to own nukes is overwhelmingly very bad for the public. It is not provable that the ownership of automatic firearms is an overall negative for the public, or that the public would benefit greatly from a restriction on them. Full-auto weapons, and the AWB "assault weapons list" of guns, (which are not the same thing) are so rarely used in crimes that we'd have to ban ballpeen hammers and kitchen knives first in order to be consistent.

    G.
    Last edited by Goshin; 04-29-09 at 05:02 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.'.."

  2. #142
    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
    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?
    and as I say... how will we know what it says. The SCOTUS interpreted the second amendment to have to do with normal military weapons at one time apparently. therefore that was interpreted the second amendment doeesn't say that rights to normal military weapons can't be infringed upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    You've made it clear that you don't respect the Constitution and would not let it stand in the way of your agenda. Congratulations, you're a politician. Probably a Democrat, but you could be a RINO.

    If you understood the 9th amendment correctly, and the writings of the founders and the general process of SCOTUS decisions, you would understand that where there is a question of what the Constitution means, or interpreting rights, it should always be interpreted in favor of individual liberty, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public intrest, provable and beyond question, in restricting something...and that "prior restraint" will result in great benefit to the citizenry.

    It is provable that shouting "fire!" fraudulently in a crowded theater is overwhelmingly very bad for the public (1st Amd). It is provable that allowing Tom Dick and Harry to own nukes is overwhelmingly very bad for the public. It is not provable that the ownership of automatic firearms is an overall negative for the public, or that the public would benefit greatly from a restriction on them. Full-auto weapons, and the AWB "assault weapons list" of guns, (which are not the same thing) are so rarely used in crimes that we'd have to ban ballpeen hammers and kitchen knives first in order to be consistent.

    G.
    99% of all people even on this forum don't respect the constitution, especially the 10th amendment. I am just admiting it, and I can easily live with that. and just for your info, all republicans (who aren't libertarians) not just RINOs don't follow the Constitution.

    And I have said my reasons for outlawing fully automatic weapons, but of course it isn't "provable." really, only economic issues can be "proven" and even then its fuzzy.

  3. #143
    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 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.
    Well hell -- why bother having a xConstitution at all if you're simply going to ignore it "for [your] political purposes"?

    For that matter, why bother discussing Constitutional issues at all?

  4. #144
    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
    Well hell -- why bother having a xConstitution at all if you're simply going to ignore it "for [your] political purposes"?

    For that matter, why bother discussing Constitutional issues at all?
    To be completely serious, if I was a politician, I would be willing to follow the second amendment if other politicians were willing to follow the 10th amendment. If other politicians weren't going to restrict themselves with that, then I don't think I would.

  5. #145
    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
    To be completely serious, if I was a politician, I would be willing to follow the second amendment if other politicians were willing to follow the 10th amendment. If other politicians weren't going to restrict themselves with that, then I don't think I would.
    I dont think you answered my question.

  6. #146
    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'?

    C'mon... there has to be at least ONE other person that thinks this is a "strong argument for banning 'assault weapons'"

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death-...post1058002944
    Last edited by Goobieman; 04-30-09 at 12:13 PM.

  7. #147
    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
    C'mon... there has to be at least ONE other person that thinks this is a "strong argument for banning 'assault weapons'"

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death-...post1058002944
    From your perspective, of following the Second Amendment as it was intended by the founding fathers, there is no arguement to ban assult weapons while the second amendment is in place.

    So, basically by definition, you can't really lose in this specific arguement.

  8. #148
    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
    From your perspective, of following the Second Amendment as it was intended by the founding fathers, there is no arguement to ban assult weapons while the second amendment is in place.

    So, basically by definition, you can't really lose in this specific arguement.
    I'll let you in on a secret...

    I started this poll to bring ridicule to the person that created the topic I just linked to (look at the OP).

    That person has yet to defend his position, even after numerous personal requests for him to do so. As expected.

    And so, aside from the lenghty and legitimate debate started by the poll, the effort has had the effect I had hoped.


  9. #149
    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
    I'll let you in on a secret...

    I started this poll to bring ridicule to the person that created the topic I just linked to (look at the OP).

    That person has yet to defend his position, even after numerous personal requests for him to do so. As expected.

    And so, aside from the lenghty and legitimate debate started by the poll, the effort has had the effect I had hoped.

    lol

    Well I guess I kinda defended his position... but I was argueing what should happen, not what can happen because of the second.

    Those are two different issues and even though I didn't actually try to say that my reasons were Constitutional, I think the reasons in the thread do make sense if the second amendment didn't exist...

    but unfortuantly the author of the thread chose the arguement that he inherently can't win...

  10. #150
    User EulyssElvisCaustic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth TEXAS
    Last Seen
    12-23-09 @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    120

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

    there is NO valid argument for outlawing the ownership of any firearms.

    butthenImbiasedsinceIhaveanextensivecollectionofas saultandhandguns
    Ill keep my guns, torah, bible, and money.....you can keep the change

Page 15 of 32 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •