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 9 of 32 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 313

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

  1. #81
    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
    huh?

    What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway?
    Don't worry, everyone else figured it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.
    Yes. That's been explained to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.
    No, they're punishing the retarded judgement of someone willing to incite panic in a crowd.

  2. #82
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,241

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    exactly... we aren't gauranteed safety.
    That's right, we aren't. Because we're free someone somewhere will make the decision to abuse their rights and infringe upon the rights of others. It's gonna happen, nothing you can do about it. We don't punish people because of possibility of abuse, we punish for actions which infringe upon the rights of others.

    (
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    see bolded text from you) But then why can't i scream fire in a crowded building? It seems like a violation of my rights from a literal interepretation of the first amendment.
    No it's not. The act of yelling fire in a crowded theater directly infringes upon the rights of others. It's action, you screaming fire in a crowded theater causes a panic in which people will get hurt. Your actions directly cause that result, that is why it's illegal. Me owning an assault rifle does not, that's not an action which infringes upon the rights of others. If I use that assault rifle to rob or murder, then that act does infringe upon the rights of others, is illegal, and may rightfully be punished.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    However, it doesn't violate it because the amendments can't be taken literally,
    It has to be taken literally, that's why it was written down in the language it was written down in. The Constitution is a very literal document. There's no story, no moral, no parable. It is a list of powers bestowed upon the government by We the People. It is nothing but literal.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    which is why we can ban assult weapons. the second amendment can't be literal if the first amendment isn't.
    They're both literal. The government can not abridge free speech, can not infringe upon expression or religion or freedom of press. It can not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. They are both literal. In the exercise of your rights, you may do as you like so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. That's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    im happy that this confusion is settled.
    I hope so...but something is telling me that you're still not going to get it.
    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."

  3. #83
    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'?

    I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once.
    By this same logic we should ban cars or toxic substances or dynamite.

    This is simillar to what nuclear weapons and rocket launchers do, which is why they should be illegal to private citizens.
    Why should a rocket launcher be illegal? As for nuclear weapons, they are not relevant as no citizen could ever obtain one.

    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.
    What about a semi-automatic rifle?

    Is that too much to ask?
    Yes. Far too much.

  4. #84
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

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

    I am so sick and tired of this "ban assault rifle" whine. What if I have to assault somebody? Answer me that.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #85
    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'?

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    I am so sick and tired of this "ban assault rifle" whine. What if I have to assault somebody? Answer me that.
    Errr use your Remington 700 after all it will penetrate some body armor.

  6. #86
    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 Ethereal View Post
    By this same logic we should ban cars or toxic substances or dynamite.



    Why should a rocket launcher be illegal? As for nuclear weapons, they are not relevant as no citizen could ever obtain one.



    What about a semi-automatic rifle?



    Yes. Far too much.
    thx lets talk about the issues.

    Cars shouldn't be illegal, because the benefits from having cars outweigh their ability to kill many people. The same with dynamite. How else would you blow up **** that you have to move? But blowing up stuff isn't very common, so that does explain why I think they are illegal.

    I don't have an answer for dynamite completely, because im doing something called "weighing the pros and cons" of a situation.

    And with rocket launchers... you don't need to blow up anything at a distance that isn't suppose to kill lots of people or blow up other people's things.

    However, assult rifles have no other purpose except killing lots of people.

    Also, i am pretty sure its illegal to develope your own nukes in the US to use as a form of arms. but if the gov prevented people from making their own guns that would be seen as a violation of the second amendment. not to mention how yellow cake bullets are most likely illegal. so the second amendment is not literal. duh

  7. #87
    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
    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"
    Ok... to remove your obtuseness here...
    Not all speech is protected undr the "freedom of speach".
    This is a long and well established constitutional issue.

    All I am saying is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely legal.
    I don't think thats what you mean to say.

    And by everyone else's logic, should we allow nuclear firearms and rocket launchers? Those don't harm anyone if they aren't used.
    Please restrict the conversation to something relevant to the topic -- "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd doesnt cover nukes.

    I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once.
    The point of having the right to arms protected by the Constitution is that sometimes people need to kill other people.
    Given this, how is your aregument for banning 'assault weapons' remain relevant?

    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.
    Um...
    You don't know that ALL 'assault weapons', by definition, ARE semi-automatic?

  8. #88
    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'?

    thx lets talk about the issues.

    Cars shouldn't be illegal, because the benefits from having cars outweigh their ability to kill many people.
    Assault rifles permit the overthrow of tyrannical governments. I'd say that's quite beneficial.

    The same with dynamite. How else would you blow up **** that you have to move?
    How else would you overthrow a tyrannical government?

    I don't have an answer for dynamite completely, because im doing something called "weighing the pros and cons" of a situation.
    Yes, I know what you're doing; fact is it's not terribly relevant. My rights are not subject to an arbitrary "pro and con" litmus test.

    And with rocket launchers... you don't need to blow up anything at a distance that isn't suppose to kill lots of people or blow up other people's things.
    You don't need to do anything really - except consume enough food and water to survive. Consequently, whether or not something is needed is irrelevant to its legal status or standing.

    However, assult rifles have no other purpose except killing lots of people.
    1. This is not true.

    2. "Killing lots of people" is a necessary side-effect of overthrowing tyrannical governments.

    Also, i am pretty sure its illegal to develope your own nukes in the US to use as a form of arms. but if the gov prevented people from making their own guns that would be seen as a violation of the second amendment. not to mention how yellow cake bullets are most likely illegal.
    Such a law would be meaningless. Obtaining nuclear weapons is virtually impossible. Also, you did not answer my question. Under your interpretation of the Second Amendment, am I allowed to possess a semi-automatic rifle?

    so the second amendment is not literal. duh
    This statement makes it extremely difficult to take your position seriously as it demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of legal theory and application. Such an interpretation would necessitate a figurative or metaphorical reading of the Constitution; this is beyond ridiculous. All legal documents are necessarily read literally, otherwise they would have no meaning or legitimacy.

  9. #89
    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
    Ok... to remove your obtuseness here...
    Not all speech is protected undr the "freedom of speach".
    This is a long and well established constitutional issue.
    You are correct that not all speech is protected under freedom of speech.

    However, once again... that is only because we aren't taking the first amendment literally.

    I don't think thats what you mean to say.
    Yes, my bad.
    Please restrict the conversation to something relevant to the topic -- "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd doesnt cover nukes.
    What is your definition of "arms"? The military currently, or has been trying to develope in the past a long range rocket launcher that fires nuclear weapons.

    I just don't quite understand how rocket launchers could be Constitutional but nuclear rocket launchers aren't by a literal interpretation of the second amendment.

    The point of having the right to arms protected by the Constitution is that sometimes people need to kill other people.
    Given this, how is your aregument for banning 'assault weapons' remain relevant?
    I have said this many times. My reason for banning assult weapons isn't based specifically on the Constitution. Its based on which weapons have no other value except for killing many people at once.

    Um...
    You don't know that ALL 'assault weapons', by definition, ARE semi-automatic?
    Fair enough. Whenever I have talked about "assult weapons" I meant completely automatic weapons. I was thinking that an assult "rifle" would be a semi-automatic.

  10. #90
    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 Ethereal View Post
    Assault rifles permit the overthrow of tyrannical governments. I'd say that's quite beneficial.



    How else would you overthrow a tyrannical government?



    Yes, I know what you're doing; fact is it's not terribly relevant. My rights are not subject to an arbitrary "pro and con" litmus test.
    Thank you, I am fine disagreing on what your rights are. We can discuss that. I am just tired discussion if the Constitution should be taken literally.

    [/QUOTE]
    You don't need to do anything really - except consume enough food and water to survive. Consequently, whether or not something is needed is irrelevant to its legal status or standing.



    1. This is not true.

    2. "Killing lots of people" is a necessary side-effect of overthrowing tyrannical governments.



    Such a law would be meaningless. Obtaining nuclear weapons is virtually impossible. Also, you did not answer my question. Under your interpretation of the Second Amendment, am I allowed to possess a semi-automatic rifle?



    This statement makes it extremely difficult to take your position seriously as it demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of legal theory and application. Such an interpretation would necessitate a figurative or metaphorical reading of the Constitution; this is beyond ridiculous. All legal documents are necessarily read literally, otherwise they would have no meaning or legitimacy.[/QUOTE]

    I understand how laws must be upheld in there principle. No one (or incorrect interpretation) is above the law.

    No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally. As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today. The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights

    Therefore, a right to life (related to the yelling in a crowded building) can't be used to violate the first amendment. So in effect, there is a contridiction in the Constitution. That is why it can't be taken literally.


    Yes, you can have a semi-automatic rifle.

    Let me clarify. when I said weapons that can kill many people without having any other benefit, I meant weapons that could kill many people at one time very quickly.

    Hell, a handgun can kill many people, it just takes a while, which is why handguns should be legal.

Page 9 of 32 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •