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 27 of 32 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 313

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

  1. #261
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,030

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

    I think the use of the term "assault weapon" is obnoxious to begin with. It is nebulous, and not specific enough, and definitely has a tinge of subjectivity. Any weapon can be used in an assault. We have to stop the use of this term entirely, before we can have a true adult discussion about arms.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  2. #262
    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 American View Post
    I think the use of the term "assault weapon" is obnoxious to begin with. It is nebulous, and not specific enough, and definitely has a tinge of subjectivity. Any weapon can be used in an assault. We have to stop the use of this term entirely, before we can have a true adult discussion about arms.
    The anti-gun loons that coined the term 'assault weapon' have met their objective -- they have managed to turn a group of people that know nothing about guns against the private ownership of an entire class of guns.

    This isnt the first time the left has preyed upon (and counted on) the ignorance and incuriousness of Useful Idiots to achieve their poliical goals.

  3. #263
    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
    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.
    I suppose so.

    But I thought that we understood that the MEANING of what the founding fathers wanted is what should be taken into consideration for the second amendment.

    For instance, "a well regulated militia being nescesary to the security of a free state" and ideas about ownership of guns by citizens are not violated from a one day waiting period.


    Once again... if we take the second amendment literally, then ANY sort of weapons (which is an arm) should be allowed by normal citizens. That includes rocket launchers and nuclear arms.

    What about violations of the first amendment too?

    I thought that the meaning of the intent of the amendments is what matters, not the specific wording and loopholes. Do you disagree with that?
    Last edited by nerv14; 05-17-09 at 10:55 PM.

  4. #264
    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 suppose so.
    So, you admit these things are infringements and therefore prohibited by the 2nd, Thank you.

    But I thought that we understood that the MEANING of what the founding fathers wanted is what should be taken into consideration for the second amendment.
    How is that not the case here?

    For instance, "a well regulated militia being nescesary to the security of a free state" and ideas about ownership of guns by citizens are not violated from a one day waiting period.
    Meaningless. The key term here is "infringement", under which, as you admit, your ideas fall.

  5. #265
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

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

    It's so funny, that my NEGATIVE RIGHT gets soo many people's feathers fluffed up.


    The idea that this nation should be persecuting people for something they *COULD* do, is ridiculous.

    Really, step back and look at your argument. You sound ****ing stupid with your speculative bull**** being spewed from your fingertips.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  6. #266
    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
    So, you admit these things are infringements and therefore prohibited by the 2nd, Thank you.


    How is that not the case here?


    Meaningless. The key term here is "infringement", under which, as you admit, your ideas fall.
    Thats regardless.

    If we take the second amendment completely literally then a one day restraint, or even any sort of restraint for ANYTHINT (including being a criminal) would be infringing on someone's right to own a gun.

    I just can't see how people can accept some restrictions on guns but not others if the second amendment will be taken literally.

    I thought the second amendment was for the goal that the founding fathers had for the amendment, and not whatever the hell we want them to mean.

  7. #267
    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
    If we take the second amendment completely literally then a one day restraint, or even any sort of restraint for ANYTHINT (including being a criminal) would be infringing on someone's right to own a gun.
    False.
    The amendment protects:
    -the right of the people
    -to keep and bear
    -arms
    Thus:
    -If you arent of the people...
    -If what you're doing doesnt fall unber "keep" or bear"...
    -If the weapon in question doesnt qualify as an 'arm" as the term is used...
    ...then the 2nd doesnt protect you.

    I just can't see how people can accept some restrictions on guns but not others if the second amendment will be taken literally.
    See above.

    Note that none of this in any way negates the argument that waiting persiod and background checks ARE infringements, for the reasons stated.

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I suppose so.

    But I thought that we understood that the MEANING of what the founding fathers wanted is what should be taken into consideration for the second amendment.
    Yes. WE understand perfectly what was intended. YOU do not. You still seek infringements, even though that was forbidden by the Second Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    For instance, "a well regulated militia being nescesary to the security of a free state" and ideas about ownership of guns by citizens are not violated from a one day waiting period.
    You can look "infringement" up in a dictionary, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Once again... if we take the second amendment literally, then ANY sort of weapons (which is an arm) should be allowed by normal citizens. That includes rocket launchers and nuclear arms.
    The intent was clearly firearms. Again, this is the usual non sequitur nonsense introduced by people who don't have the nads to admit that the government isn't allowed to infringe on private gun ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    What about violations of the first amendment too?
    Another non sequitur.

    Jeez, don't you people have the decency to admit when you're wrong?

    It's illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that harms people. Notice, how ever, that it's no illegal to bring a mouth that can shout "fire" into a theater. The act is punished, not the potential.

    Similarly, it's not lawful under the Second Amendment to ban firearm ownership, but all states have perfectly constitutional laws punishing people who use guns to harm others.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 05-19-09 at 01:43 PM.

  9. #269
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    If we take the second amendment completely literally then a one day restraint, or even any sort of restraint for ANYTHINT (including being a criminal) would be infringing on someone's right to own a gun.
    Absolutely correct.

    A waiting period infringes on the right to own guns.

    Personally I don't care if an ex-con owns a weapon. If he uses it in a crime, put him back in jail and forget he existed. A gun not used harms no one.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I thought the second amendment was for the goal that the founding fathers had for the amendment, and not whatever the hell we want them to mean.
    The goal of the Founding Daddies was to ensure the people had the means, in their hands, to depose any new tyrant that might arise. That means we can't allow wannabe tyrants to impose their anti-gun tyranny upon us in the name of our alleged safety.

  10. #270
    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
    False.
    The amendment protects:
    -the right of the people
    -to keep and bear
    -arms
    Thus:
    -If you arent of the people...
    -If what you're doing doesnt fall unber "keep" or bear"...
    -If the weapon in question doesnt qualify as an 'arm" as the term is used...
    ...then the 2nd doesnt protect you.


    See above.

    Note that none of this in any way negates the argument that waiting persiod and background checks ARE infringements, for the reasons stated.
    Wait a sec, I thought that you were for background checks for criminals even though you are saying that they are Unconstitutional. There has been many people in this thread, I may be getting you confused with another comment.


    I have said my point before though about how we should take the Amendments on what their purpose is.

    Even if not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded building is violating the rights of others to safety it is still a violation of your freedom of speach.

    So whos "rights" do you take away? If all literal rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be upheld, then it is impossible for the system to function because some rights contridict others. Does someone think I am wrong on that?

    So instead, we should just follow common sense. Background checks for criminals and 1 day wating to give someone a day to cool off.

    Those things do need to go together, we have them both or they are Unconstitutional. They can also be Constitutional and we can decide not to have them of course.

Page 27 of 32 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... 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
  •