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 26 of 32 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 313

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

  1. #251
    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
    It doesn't infringe on someone getting a gun if they want to though.
    Yes, yes it does.

    Because, as mentioned, it is an artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check -- an arbitrary precondition to the extercise of the right not inherent to that right, instituted to allow a form or prior restraint to be levied against the person exercisig the right in question.

    How is that NOT an infringement?

  2. #252
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes, yes it does.

    Because, as mentioned, it is an artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check -- an arbitrary precondition to the extercise of the right not inherent to that right, instituted to allow a form or prior restraint to be levied against the person exercisig the right in question.

    How is that NOT an infringement?

    ANti Gun types-or the sheeple who mindlessly support or don't oppose some idiotic gun laws-often claim that a law is proper because it does not "INFRINGE" on our rights to a pernicious degree. Notice how they never can actually justify the law as doing any good.

    A waiting period is worthless and is only designed to hassle people
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  3. #253
    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
    Yes, yes it does.

    Because, as mentioned, it is an artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check -- an arbitrary precondition to the extercise of the right not inherent to that right, instituted to allow a form or prior restraint to be levied against the person exercisig the right in question.

    How is that NOT an infringement?
    I looked up infringe, just to be sure, and it says to violate the rights of another.

    So waiting periods don't violate rights to own a gun.

    If there is some separate "legal definition" of infringe then I would like to hear it.

    If those laws are used to just "hassle" people when they want to buy guns, and prevent them from purchasing them, then that violates the interpretation of the Second Amendment from the founding fathers. Anything less is fine Constitutionally though.

  4. #254
    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
    I looked up infringe, just to be sure, and it says to violate the rights of another.
    So waiting periods don't violate rights to own a gun.
    They do.
    Both of the items I described -- a precondition not inherent and, especially, prior restraint -- are held to be infringements in regards to other rights. There is no way to argue that they are not also infringemrnts when applied to the right to arms.

  5. #255
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    ANti Gun types-or the sheeple who mindlessly support or don't oppose some idiotic gun laws-often claim that a law is proper because it does not "INFRINGE" on our rights to a pernicious degree. Notice how they never can actually justify the law as doing any good.
    Funny thing is, when you suggest applying the restrictions they suggest do not infringe the right to arms to rights they DO like, they get all flustered.

    Imagine, needing to get a license to report the news.
    Imagine, needing to get a license to have an abortion.
    Imagine, needing a 5-day wait to send a letter to the editor, so that the government can be sure that the letter does not include libel, slander, sedition, 'fighting words', etc.

  6. #256
    User Thoreau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    09-17-09 @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    102

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

    His argument is that "assault weapons" should be illegal because they are not traditional hunting weapons. They are both semi-auto but since one is black rifle made of metal it should be illegal. Heck, hunting weapons are more dangerous than "assault weapons" in that they are accurate, have a large caliber intended for big game and have a scope for long range shots.

    So Carter wrote this piece? Well you know what they say, Democrats make the best gun salesmen. Might have talked me and many others, who never intended of owning a so called "assault weapon" into getting one before the ban is reinstated. Great job Dems.

  7. #257
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Funny thing is, when you suggest applying the restrictions they suggest do not infringe the right to arms to rights they DO like, they get all flustered.

    Imagine, needing to get a license to report the news.
    Imagine, needing to get a license to have an abortion.
    Imagine, needing a 5-day wait to send a letter to the editor, so that the government can be sure that the letter does not include libel, slander, sedition, 'fighting words', etc.

    ask a NARAL advocate what the only purpose for a 24 hour waiting period for an abortion is.
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  8. #258
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau View Post
    His argument is that "assault weapons" should be illegal because they are not traditional hunting weapons. They are both semi-auto but since one is black rifle made of metal it should be illegal. Heck, hunting weapons are more dangerous than "assault weapons" in that they are accurate, have a large caliber intended for big game and have a scope for long range shots.

    So Carter wrote this piece? Well you know what they say, Democrats make the best gun salesmen. Might have talked me and many others, who never intended of owning a so called "assault weapon" into getting one before the ban is reinstated. Great job Dems.

    at one time there was no real difference between hunting and military weapons. In the 1700's military weapons were less lethal than hunting weapons-the muskets of the redcoats were designed to be loaded faster (smooth bore-less ramming the ball home) for the group volley tactics used by Euro armies. Like the british longbow, such weapons were pretty worthless as one on one weapons. The kentucky long rifle, on the other hand, was accurate to 200 Yards and could kill at half a mile.

    During the late 1800's the single shot springfield rifles had no where near the rate of fire of the heavy winchester lever guns. Civilians had semi auto center fire rifles when our WWI and early WWII soldiers were still using bolt action rifles. It wasn't until Vietnam did the average infantryman have a faster shooting weapon than what a civilian could buy.


    BTW almost every modern hunting design was based on a military model-the Mauser 98 is the basis of most bolt action hunting rifles-which of course was Germany's Main Battle Rifle in both war.
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  9. #259
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    It bears repeating: There is no "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'.

  10. #260
    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 Jerry View Post
    It bears repeating: There is no "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'.
    Not according to certain nameless people (WillR) who refuse to come here and defend their position to that effect...

Page 26 of 32 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... 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
  •