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 8 of 32 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 313

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

  1. #71
    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
    They are going to take it, because they are better armed than you are. Thats why the founders did not want the government heavily armed.
    And that is why the Founders wanted the citizens to be armed.

    Don't forget that part.

    It's important.

  2. #72
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Laws against discharging a firearm into the air within city limits do not infringe on the right to arms, as such an act is a direct danger to others.
    THAT is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater.

  3. #73
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Laws against discharging a firearm into the air within city limits do not infringe on the right to arms, as such an act is a direct danger to others.
    THAT is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater.
    I agree, I think we made the same point essentially, mine was just a little longer winded.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #74
    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
    But if someone has an assult rifle that also can put me at risk.
    Here's a concept.

    It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the second Amendment allows all those people to tote guns and they might get the wrong idea.

    No.

    Wait.

    It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the authorities need a means to charge the irresponsible ass that caused all the harm. If it's not against the law, they can't charge him.

    You will note, and note very carefully, the law doesn't forbid anyone to own a mouth, it only punishes the misuse of that mouth.

    Equally important, the law should permit unlimited ownership of guns (the highest law, the Constitution, does), but punishes improper use of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    My whole point is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely literally.
    Well, that's wrong.

  5. #75
    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
    Here's a concept.

    It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the second Amendment allows all those people to tote guns and they might get the wrong idea.

    No.

    Wait.

    It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the authorities need a means to charge the irresponsible ass that caused all the harm. If it's not against the law, they can't charge him.

    You will note, and note very carefully, the law doesn't forbid anyone to own a mouth, it only punishes the misuse of that mouth.

    Equally important, the law should permit unlimited ownership of guns (the highest law, the Constitution, does), but punishes improper use of them.



    Well, that's wrong.
    huh?

    What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.

    I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.


    If people want, they can argue that even though the second amendment (or any other amendment) can't be taken literally, but that assault weapons should still be legal. but you guys are fighting on my home turf :P

  6. #76
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    I agree, I think we made the same point essentially, mine was just a little longer winded.
    Indeed, we did.

  7. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-22-16 @ 07:06 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,215

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

    Nerv shooting people is illegal for the most part owning a gun is not.

  8. #78
    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
    huh?

    What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.

    I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.
    You are arguing that simple posession of a class of firearms should be banned, on the idea that it creates a danger to public safety -- because they could be used to kill large numbers of people.

    The POTENTIAL to endanger public safety is not the same as ACTUALLY endangering public safety.

    If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.

  9. #79
    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
    What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.
    And, to reiterate, not all speech is "free speech".

  10. #80
    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, what's the argument for banning simple posession?


    >99.99% of guns are not used to kill anyone... so, no, I cannot.


    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?
    Doesn't matter for my point

    [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.
    Doesn't matter for my point
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Sure it can. Not all speech is "free speech".
    "Fighting words", libel, slander -- all examples of things that are not free speech.


    Sure it can.
    Not all weapons are 'arms'.
    Not everyone is among 'the people'.
    Not every limitation is an 'infringement'.


    You havn't shown that simple posession of an 'assault weapon' is a danger to public safety.
    Doesn't matter for my point
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Or you could read the whole thread, since that point was dismissed already. It's not a long thread, so have at it.
    i am hearing everyone's reason now, and it doesn't work. i doubt it was explained better before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Doesn't matter for my point

    wheere do people have a "right" to not hear someone yell fire in a crowded building. The Bill of Rights specifically says that rights can't be used to get rid of other rights
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You are arguing that simple posession of a class of firearms should be banned, on the idea that it creates a danger to public safety -- because they could be used to kill large numbers of people.

    The POTENTIAL to endanger public safety is not the same as ACTUALLY endangering public safety.

    If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.
    no im not.
    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Nerv shooting people is illegal for the most part owning a gun is not.
    thx for the info. and I agree, most of the time owning a gun is legal.

    Wait, so you do think that owning some guns should be illegal? thats just what im saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And, to reiterate, not all speech is "free speech".
    No, it doesn't say that all speech is "free speech."

    The first amendment says that there can't be any violations in the freedom of speech. Its the freedom to say speech, not some strange "free speech"

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    All I am saying is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely legal.

    And by everyone else's logic, should we allow nuclear firearms and rocket launchers? Those don't harm anyone if they aren't used.


    I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once. This is simillar to what nuclear weapons and rocket launchers do, which is why they should be illegal to private citizens.

    However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.

    Is that too much to ask?

Page 8 of 32 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •