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 7 of 32 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 313

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

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,225

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I wonder why we havent heard from WillRockwell on this issue...
    His cyber kitty avatar got a hairball?

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    All anti-Second Amendment arguments are, by their very nature, preposterous and nonsensical.

  3. #63
    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
    No... simple posession of an assault rifle (or 'assault weapon') puts no one at risk. Having a firearm of any kind doesnt endanger anyone, just as Having the ability to yell fire in a theater doesnt endanger anyone.

    Now, DOING something with it is another story.
    Yes, it doesn't immedietly put other people at risk, but I am trying to ballance freedom and making it harder for one person to kill many other people at once. But im sure you can see the conneection between people having guns and them using them :P

    and about yelling fire in a crowded building... that is illegal and it doesn't DIRECTLY cause people harm. Thank you, that was exactly my point.




    just to say, i support people to have most of the guns that they want. if someone wants any rifle they can probally have it. I am not making the arguement that all guns should be outlawed because they can be used to kill other people, im just drawing a line somewhere.
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-28-09 at 11:18 AM.

  4. #64
    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
    Yes, it doesn't immedietly put other people at risk...
    So, what's the argument for banning simple posession?

    But im sure you can see the conneection between people having guns and them using them
    >99.99% of guns are not used to kill anyone... so, no, I cannot.

    ...yelling fire in a crowded building... that is illegal and it doesn't DIRECTLY cause people harm.
    It DOES directly put people at risk, which is why it is illegal,
    What do you suppose the gun-related equivelant to yelling fire in a theater might be?

  5. #65
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

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

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post

    and about yelling fire in a crowded building... that is illegal and it doesn't DIRECTLY cause people harm. Thank you, that was exactly my point.
    Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, does, and did do harm to others, which is why it is unprotected speach, the utterance, an action, creates a clear and present danger. Owning an assault rifle in itself is not an intent to harm, and like Gobieman stated, the intent to harm would be firing the rifle, that is the actionn that could be considered a clear and present danger, the behavior of illicit use of the weapon can be banned constitutionally, NOT the action of owning it.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #66
    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
    What do you suppose the gun-related equivelant to yelling fire in a theater might be?
    ...I don't

    [quote=LaMidRighter;1058004254]
    Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, does, and did do harm to others, which is why it is unprotected speach, the utterance, an action, creates a clear and present danger. Owning an assault rifle in itself is not an intent to harm, and like Gobieman stated, the intent to harm would be firing the rifle, that is the actionn that could be considered a clear and present danger, the behavior of illicit use of the weapon can be banned constitutionally, NOT the action of owning it.
    no, no, no you don't understand the context of what i said about yelling fire in a crowded building.

    to clarify.

    laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded building is against the first amendmemt. Therefore, the amendments can't be taken literally for that law to be Constitutional.

    that means that the second amendment also can't be taken completely literally.

    and once again... I am ballancing safety and civil liberties, i support all other types of gun ownership.

  7. #67
    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 clarify.
    laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded building is against the first amendmemt. Therefore, the amendments can't be taken literally for that law to be Constitutional.
    Sure it can. Not all speech is "free speech".
    "Fighting words", libel, slander -- all examples of things that are not free speech.

    that means that the second amendment also can't be taken completely literally.
    Sure it can.
    Not all weapons are 'arms'.
    Not everyone is among 'the people'.
    Not every limitation is an 'infringement'.

    and once again... I am ballancing safety and civil liberties, i support all other types of gun ownership.
    You havn't shown that simple posession of an 'assault weapon' is a danger to public safety.

  8. #68
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14;1058004277
    no, no, no you don't understand the context of what i said about yelling fire in a crowded building.

    to clarify.

    [B
    laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded building is against the first amendmemt. Therefore, the amendments can't be taken literally for that law to be Constitutional.

    that means that the second amendment also can't be taken completely literally.[/B]
    and once again... I am ballancing safety and civil liberties, i support all other types of gun ownership.
    No, No, No, I do understand, I had to take classes on just these issues when I went to college, and this is exactly how the rights break down. You have the right to free speach as long as it is protected. Prurient, injurious, and obscene language is not protected, yet the words and sometimes images that could form those unprotected forms of expression are, the same courtesy is for some reason not extended to the second amendment by anti-gun, uninformed politicians. An assault rifle shares many of the same charecteristics of common hunting rifles, yet it has a different look due to differing operating needs, If I wanted to commit an obscenity using the f-word then that would be intent, similarly if I used a normally innocuous word such as fire in a crowd, my intention would be to create chaos, this could result in death which speaks to the intent of the speaker. Owning an "assualt weapon" also known to people who know what they are talking about as a modified rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc. for target shooting, competitive target shooting, and self-defense harms no one.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #69
    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
    when was this?

    im new, could you bring up this point again...
    Or you could read the whole thread, since that point was dismissed already. It's not a long thread, so have at it.

  10. #70
    Global Moderator
    Engagement!
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I don't know the specific differences between an assult rifle and an assault weapon. Maybe an assult rifle doesn't put people at risk, you agree ethat assult weapons do, and that is what my position is.
    All weapons, by the way you're using the term, "put people at risk".

    Cars put people at risk, shall we ban cars?

    Knives put people at risk, shall we ban Knives?

    Razors put people at risk, shall we ban razors?

    Hammers put people at risk, shall we ban hammers?

    Someone owning an assult weapon does not infringe on anyones rights. If said person then brandishes or fires an assult weapon at someone else, then that argument can be made.

    Likewise

    Saying "Fire" does not infringe upon anyones rights. However, say "Fire" in the middle of a large crowd in a confined space with limited exits and then an argument can be made.
    You down with TPP?

Page 7 of 32 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •