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 4 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 313

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

  1. #31
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,892

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Nope.

    Re-read Federalist 28. The Second Amendment was to ensure that if the local or federal government subverted the militia's the people still had recourse to their own weapons to defend their liberties.
    Yes, in Hamilton's opinion.

    However, the constitution was a consensus document thus Jefferson would have had a much different opinion. The classical liberals at the time believed that the strongest check against a totalitarian state was for the federal government not to have a large standing army and thus be dependent on the people to defend the nation. This goes back to the Glorious Revolution in 1688:

    "“When a Tyrant’s Army is beaten, his Country is conquered: He has no Resource; his Subjects having neither Arms...nor Reason to fight for him.”

    “and therefore it is fit that Mankind should know...that his Majesty can be defended against them...without Standing Armies; which would make him formidable only to his People....”

    “When the People are easy and satisfied, the whole Kingdom is Kings Army.”"

    The point is that armed citizenry and regulated militias were not intended to defend the people against a totalitarian state and its armies, but rather to replace the state's army altogether and thus make it impossible for the state ever to become a tyrant.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 04-27-09 at 08:25 PM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  2. #32
    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 SouthernDemocrat View Post
    So say a citizen wants to arm himself with a rocket launcher, should he or she be able to just go down to the local gun show and buy it?
    Damn, you people have serious difficulty with the English language, or what?

    No, we've already covered the going nuclear non-sequitur, which includes as a subset the Black Hawk Down non-sequitur for the purposes of this discussion, which happens to be, if you people would be bothered to read the thread title, the OP, or any of the posts, including the ones you've already responded to, "assault weapons".

    Got it?

  3. #33
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,892

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Damn, you people have serious difficulty with the English language, or what?

    No, we've already covered the going nuclear non-sequitur, which includes as a subset the Black Hawk Down non-sequitur for the purposes of this discussion, which happens to be, if you people would be bothered to read the thread title, the OP, or any of the posts, including the ones you've already responded to, "assault weapons".

    Got it?
    The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's arms not just assault weapons, but arms. At the the time of the nation's founding, a citizen could go out and buy a cannon or a warship if they saw fit to do so.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #34
    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 SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Yes, in Hamilton's opinion.

    However, the constitution was a consensus document thus Jefferson would have had a much different opinion. The classical liberals at the time believed that the strongest check against a totalitarian state was for the federal government not to have a large standing army and thus be dependent on the people to defend the nation. This goes back to the Glorious Revolution in 1688:

    "“When a Tyrant’s Army is beaten, his Country is conquered: He has no Resource; his Subjects having neither Arms...nor Reason to fight for him.”

    “and therefore it is fit that Mankind should know...that his Majesty can be defended against them...without Standing Armies; which would make him formidable only to his People....”

    “When the People are easy and satisfied, the whole Kingdom is Kings Army.”"

    The point is, that armed citizenry and regulated militias were not intended to defend the people against a totalitarian state and its armies, but rather to replace the state's army altogether and thus make it impossible for the state ever to become a tyrant.

    Good thing Hamilton got his way on that.

    It's what the Second Amendment is for.

    The point is, the people who formed this government were the people who used their very own private weapons stock to divorce themselves from the tyranny of their former government, so they knew damn well what they were doing when they said the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    They weren't discussing the national guard. EVERY place the phrase "the people" is used in the Constitution, it's recognized as a reference to the individual citizen, not some vague collective. The only place argument to the contrary is made is when leftists are trying to eliminate private gun ownership.

  5. #35
    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 SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's arms not just assault weapons, but arms. At the the time of the nation's founding, a citizen could go out and buy a cannon or a warship if they saw fit to do so.
    Already covered that boy.

    Get a new record. Us old farts can tell what it means when you keep skipping back to an irrelevant point that's arleady been dismissed.

    It means you're wrong, no matter how many times you slip into the worn out groove.

  6. #36
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,892

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Good thing Hamilton got his way on that.

    It's what the Second Amendment is for.

    The point is, the people who formed this government were the people who used their very own private weapons stock to divorce themselves from the tyranny of their former government, so they knew damn well what they were doing when they said the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    They weren't discussing the national guard. EVERY place the phrase "the people" is used in the Constitution, it's recognized as a reference to the individual citizen, not some vague collective. The only place argument to the contrary is made is when leftists are trying to eliminate private gun ownership.
    I am not disagreeing with any of that. I have consistently been in favor of a near absolute right to bear arms. I was just pointing out that the reason they wanted an armed citizenry was not so the citizenry could defend itself against the government, but rather so that the citizenry would be the army and the means of defense for the nation, and thus the government would always be beholden to the citizenry as it would not even have the means to impose tyranny on them.

    You see when people don't get that, then they will be ok with an empire made possible by a huge and expensive army so long as they get to buy the guns they want. That was not what the founders intended. They intended you and me to be that means of defense for the nation. Even at the time of the Revolution, they knew that if the federal government had a large standing army, it could impose its will on the people even if they were armed because the standing army could always be better armed and better trained. Thus they wanted the government to be dependent on the citizens for the defense of the nation instead.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  7. #37
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,178

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Jimmy Carter:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/op...r=2&ref=global



    So:
    Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?
    There is no reason to restrict the 2nd amendment. Just like there is no reason for restricting the 1st amendment. If someone goes and kills someone go and charge that person with murder just like if someone goes and gives secrets to the enemy you charge that person with treason.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 04-27-09 at 08:49 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #38
    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
    Already covered that boy.

    Get a new record. Us old farts can tell what it means when you keep skipping back to an irrelevant point that's arleady been dismissed.

    It means you're wrong, no matter how many times you slip into the worn out groove.
    when was this?

    im new, could you bring up this point again...

  9. #39
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,235

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Someone who doesn't want his whole family blown away before I can even pick up a weapon of my own?
    What does that have to do with my need for an assault rifle? You said I don't need one to defend myself, I say I do. Who are you to say I can't? If I need the weapon, I need it. It has nothing to do with your family, besides assault rifles doesn't mean that your family is at any greater risk than before.
    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."

  10. #40
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,235

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    yeah, yeah, yeah...

    and the first amendment is violated when I yell fire in a crowded building...
    No, yelling fire in a crowded building puts those people at direct risk and thus infringes upon their rights. Our rights end at the rights of others. Me owning a gun does not innately infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
    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."

Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •