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 28 of 32 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 313

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

  1. #271
    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
    Wait a sec, I thought that you were for background checks for criminals even though you are saying that they are Unconstitutional.
    Then you arent paying attention.

    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.
    No. It isn't An inhernet part of a right is that when you exercise a right, you arent harming or endangering anyone else -- and so, "speech" that harms/endangers someone else isnt "free speech" and thus not protected.

    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?
    Rights, by their nature, do not conflict, as they end at the point where they cause harm to someone else.

    So instead, we should just follow common sense. Background checks for criminals and 1 day wating to give someone a day to cool off.
    Both of these things violate the constitution, for the reasons already given (and never addressed).

  2. #272
    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
    Then you arent paying attention.


    No. It isn't An inhernet part of a right is that when you exercise a right, you arent harming or endangering anyone else -- and so, "speech" that harms/endangers someone else isnt "free speech" and thus not protected.
    So by definition, you are saying that any expression can't harm someone else???

    Well that is an exception to a literal right of "freedom of speech". If we both agree that there is exceptions to rights then thats great. I can settle with that.

    I think the idea of rights is much more interesting then just how it relates to the second or first Amendment anyway...

    Rights, by their nature, do not conflict, as they end at the point where they cause harm to someone else.
    I think that is too simplistic. Unfortuantly, you are talking about a senario when one right is FIRST considered to be a true right and then asking yourself when it violates someone else's other rights. That doesn't have to do with if the second right has been violated.


    What you are saying doesn't fullfill a criteria of when the MOST rights of people are being upheld. I believe that should be strived for, and the way to do that is to take rights on their overall themes, instead of worrying about exceptions TOO much.

    Both of these things violate the constitution, for the reasons already given (and never addressed).
    I disagree, because the Constitution is based on what the founding father's intended or else all of the Rights in the Constitution would contridict.


    Once again... when someone screams "fire" in a crowded building there is two rights involved.

    1. Right for someone to lie that there is a fire.
    2. Right for someone's own life.

    How isn't lying that there is a fire not free speech? Lying is legal. Free speech involves the expression of a certain view that someone has, and even if someone held out a sign saying "fire" in a crowded building that would also be illegal.

    and the first amendment says there can be no laws "abridging the freedom of speech" it does not say that "free speech" must be protected, but that there is "freedom of speech." This means that the freedom is in how any sort of speech can be used, when "free speech" is not a criteria of what speech is protected.

    Unfortuantly, if you outlaw either someone expressing that there is a fire or you allow someone to die in a panic then one of the rights are being violated.

    Therefore, rights sometimes contridict each other. Therefore, we must pick which combination is the best for everyone based on the intent of the rights (and not the literal translation of the rights of life and expression).

    Since the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have guns, a 1 day waiting period on that does not violate the right.



    This has been going on long enough, I am trying to make this as direct and even as consice as I can though.

  3. #273
    Student LowRevs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Downeast in NC
    Last Seen
    07-12-12 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    272

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

    It is impossible for me to believe that there are reasonably intelligent people out there that think that restrictions on law abiding citizens will suddenly disarm criminals. Criminals have no respect for the law, that's why they are criminals. They will find, modify or whatever to get the weapon they think they need.
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.--Thomas Jefferson

  4. #274
    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
    So by definition, you are saying that any expression can't harm someone else???
    Hang it up, you're only embarassing yourself. The restrictions on speech are such that the intention of the First Amendment is not violated by applying them.

    People can be held criminally liable for speech that harms others, ie, inciting riot, causing mass panic, and slander and libel.

    However, they have to use their freedom of speech before they can be held liable for it.

    Similarly, absolutely ZERO harm can occur from anyone excercising their right keep and bear arms.

    Ergo, absolutely no rational interpretation of the Second Amendment can be constructed that limits gun ownership.

  5. #275
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Hang it up, you're only embarassing yourself. The restrictions on speech are such that the intention of the First Amendment is not violated by applying them.

    People can be held criminally liable for speech that harms others, ie, inciting riot, causing mass panic, and slander and libel.

    However, they have to use their freedom of speech before they can be held liable for it.

    Similarly, absolutely ZERO harm can occur from anyone excercising their right keep and bear arms.

    Ergo, absolutely no rational interpretation of the Second Amendment can be constructed that limits gun ownership.
    Thats irrelevant to the issue about what rights in the Constitution mean.

    Just because the literal Second Amendment doesn't infringe on other rights (such as the First Amendment can) that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment must be taken completely literally.

    If Constitutional rights must be taken literally, then it doesn't matter if the First Amendment starts violating the right to life. It would then be Unconstitutional to violate the First Amendment anyway even if it did harm others.

  6. #276
    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
    Thats irrelevant to the issue about what rights in the Constitution mean.
    Okay, whatever you say then.

    Then the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what is written down on the paper, that the federal government has absolutely no authority to interfere with the gun purchases of anyone, and that since the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the States, it means also that the States have no authority to regulate gun ownership.

    Thread closed.

  7. #277
    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
    So by definition, you are saying that any expression can't harm someone else???
    Expressions that fall under the right of free speech and thus the protection of the Constitution. Correct.

    Well that is an exception to a literal right of "freedom of speech".
    No. It is not.

    I think that is too simplistic.
    However simplistinc you think it is, it is absoutely correct.

    I disagree, because the Constitution is based on what the founding father's intended or else all of the Rights in the Constitution would contridict.
    As prevuously noted, you're wrong.

    Since the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have guns, a 1 day waiting period on that does not violate the right.
    As previously illustrated, in an argument you have not addressed, you're wrong.

  8. #278
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,700

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Thats irrelevant to the issue about what rights in the Constitution mean.

    Just because the literal Second Amendment doesn't infringe on other rights (such as the First Amendment can) that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment must be taken completely literally.

    If Constitutional rights must be taken literally, then it doesn't matter if the First Amendment starts violating the right to life. It would then be Unconstitutional to violate the First Amendment anyway even if it did harm others.
    Kindly tell me what part of the constitution actually allows the federal government the power to impose a waiting period.
    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. #279
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    Kindly tell me what part of the constitution actually allows the federal government the power to impose a waiting period.
    Nothing. But I think a state should be able to.


    There has been enough discussions for other posts though. I made my point and no one has refutted it. I am sure everyone thinks the same about their points too, but thats life.

  10. #280
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,700

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Nothing. But I think a state should be able to.


    There has been enough discussions for other posts though. I made my point and no one has refutted it. I am sure everyone thinks the same about their points too, but thats life.
    well since the 9th circuit just incorporated the 2nd to the states through the 14th, even that might be suspect.


    What was there to refute? The federal government has no proper power to impose a waiting period and said period is worthless in terms of doing anything positive.
    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.

Page 28 of 32 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... 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
  •