Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3001970
Your facts here pretty much prove my point that opposite groups have differing opinions and different ways in interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
The top of your rant is just a regurgitation of some NRA propaganda material. Irrelevent to the argument. Try again. This is getting good.


Are the writings of Madison, Jefferson and the others he quoted "propaganda" too?
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3001969
All this poll supports is your theory that most Americans don't want the Constitution modified for any reason. Look up the poll that ranks where owning guns is a major concern for Americans at this time. Get back to me when you find it.
That is the basis for this discussion,so why would i care if its major concern or not?Its a concern where it ranks is irrelevant.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3001977
Drunk driving not intentional, hah.
Come on. You're saying a person who gets into a car drunk, has the sole intention of going out and killing somebody while driving that vehicle? You're just arguing to argue.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3001970
Your facts here pretty much prove my point that opposite groups have differing opinions and different ways in interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
The top of your rant is just a regurgitation of some NRA propaganda material. Irrelevent to the argument. Try again. This is getting good.

You can pick out the one paragraph and ignore the Founding Fathers ,Supreme Court and a Majority of Americans if you like but facts are facts like it or not.You sir, are in the minority on this one.You have a habit of ignoring fact.I can accept that you dont agree with the Constitution but dont tell me that most American feel the same as you.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3001966
Read the one above it:
31. Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk
Support 54% 32% 72% 51% 43% 65% 50% 70%
Oppose 40 63 23 43 54 28 45 26
DK/NA 5 4 5 5 4 7 6 4
Lets see,Gun control means making sure criminals don't get guns,guns and ammo arent being sold illegally,waiting periods,background checks....... However the majority likes the idea of owning guns including assault weapons.The Supreme Court already said it is unconstitutional to distinguish one type of weapon from another so there goes that out the window.
What else do you have?
Remember:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Nice try though but you have to use all the info not just the parts that suit your opinion.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3002336
Lets see,Gun control means making sure criminals don't get guns,guns and ammo arent being sold illegally,waiting periods,background checks....... However the majority likes the idea of owning guns including assault weapons.The Supreme Court already said it is unconstitutional to distinguish one type of weapon from another so there goes that out the window.
What else do you have?
Remember:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Nice try though but you have to use all the info not just the parts that suit your opinion.
Speak for yourself. You keep posting all these one-liners from Adams, Jefferson and the like, but you have no idea of the context of the speech or discussion that led to those quotes.
Where do you get off saying a majority of Americans like the idea of owning guns? From this one poll? Go look at the history of that poll you found. It was performed by some unknown university called Quinnipiac University. They normally perform polls in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. For this poll, from July 8 -13, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,783 voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. 1,783 people Oh yea, now that's a majority of Americans.
Even in your meaningless poll, 54% of those polled supported stricter gun control laws, which I assume would include assault weapons. Which Supreme Court case is this little excerpt you keep reciting coming from? Interesting to read the entire case, not just one excerpt that the NRAers keep posting.
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3002336
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
IIRC, it is from Section IV of DC v Heller, aka the "Heller Decision"
FWIW, I'm walking away from this discussion. We are from differing ideological viewpoints and that's okay, we don't have to like it.
Personally, I don't care if polls show 99% of Americans want to ban them, the law is the law, if they change it - so be it, though I will fight it every step of the way. But right now, the law states I can purchase and possess said arms and until that changes, I will peaceably use said arms for any and all lawful purposes.
IMO the burden of proof is upon those that want to change it, not those that want to defend it, "it" being the law. Right now, they are legal. If you want to ban them, go ahead and provide proof that doing so will do anything but degrade the Constitution (as I see it) and go through the legal channels of creating such a law. I feel no compunction to substantiate my rights under law when the law is on my side. Again, the burden of proof is upon those that would create such a law, not those that are defending our rights as they currently stand.
Take care
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/3002570
IIRC, it is from Section IV of DC v Heller, aka the "Heller Decision"
FWIW, I'm walking away from this discussion. We are from differing ideological viewpoints and that's okay, we don't have to like it.
Personally, I don't care if polls show 99% of Americans want to ban them, the law is the law, if they change it - so be it, though I will fight it every step of the way. But right now, the law states I can purchase and possess said arms and until that changes, I will peaceably use said arms for any and all lawful purposes.
IMO the burden of proof is upon those that want to change it, not those that want to defend it, "it" being the law. Right now, they are legal. If you want to ban them, go ahead and provide proof that doing so will do anything but degrade the Constitution (as I see it) and go through the legal channels of creating such a law. I feel no compunction to substantiate my rights under law when the law is on my side. Again, the burden of proof is upon those that would create such a law, not those that are defending our rights as they currently stand.
Take care
Spoken like a true lawyer. Hope you feel the same way about abortion rights, gay marriage rights, the Day After Pill, etc. Doesn't the 9th Amendement cover those topics?
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002618
Spoken like a true lawyer. Hope you feel the same way about abortion rights, gay marriage rights, the Day After Pill, etc.
Actually, I do feel the same way about it. IMO, the federal government's job is to secure the borders, provide a stable currency, and to protect my right to live my life as I see fit provided I live within the bounds of the Constitution and my state & local laws. It is not the federal government's job to dictate or mandate morality in any sense of the word.
FWIW, I'd also like to see most of the US drug laws repealed and I could throw in a bunch of others as well. The Constitution does not give the federal gov't authority to regulate these in any way per the 10th Amendment.
I do try to be consistent in my thoughts on this. Sometimes this creates challenges but freedom of law abiding citizens to live their lives without gov't interference is paramount to me.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002550
Speak for yourself. You keep posting all these one-liners from Adams, Jefferson and the like, but you have no idea of the context of the speech or discussion that led to those quotes.
What other context could you conclude from these writings i have provided for you?
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787."..................................................
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002550
Where do you get off saying a majority of Americans like the idea of owning guns? From this one poll? Go look at the history of that poll you found. It was performed by some unknown university called Quinnipiac University. They normally perform polls in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. For this poll, from July 8 -13, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,783 voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. 1,783 people Oh yea, now that's a majority of Americans.

Show me something contrary with fact.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002550
Even in your meaningless poll, 54% of those polled supported stricter gun control laws, which I assume would include assault weapons. Which Supreme Court case is this little excerpt you keep reciting coming from? Interesting to read the entire case, not just one excerpt that the NRAers keep posting.
You Keep assuming with no fact to back up anything you say.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
Ive posted the link numerous time for you,what else do you want?Read the friggin opinion, read US history and you would be less ignorant on the issue.Instead of assuming and guessing you could have a educated opinion.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002327
Come on. You're saying a person who gets into a car drunk, has the sole intention of going out and killing somebody while driving that vehicle? You're just arguing to argue.

They are willfully commiting an illegal act. That act may very well lead to the deaths of others. Of all the major traumas I've seen, 90% plus were alcohol related.
 
bs21

bs21

Member
in my opinion all this article is doing is showing another reason why better screening and evaluation is needed for gun ownership. my fiances uncle was shot 6 times by a man who was obviously mentally unstable when given a psych evaluation. yet he owns guns. so to me gun control needs to be reformed to keep guns from being owned by the person in this article. How is another question though.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3002715
What other context could you conclude from these writings i have provided for you?
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787."..................................................
Show me something contrary with fact.
You Keep assuming with no fact to back up anything you say.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
Ive posted the link numerous time for you,what else do you want?Read the friggin opinion, read US history and you would be less ignorant on the issue.Instead of assuming and guessing you could have a educated opinion.

They are EXCERPTS of speeches or writings. What was stated before that little one liner? Supreme Court rulings get turned over every day. All it takes is to wait for a couple of the conservative judges to kick off, and the whole debate could change. That's the funny part. Ginsberg could die next year, and Obama can select a anti-gun candidate, and could be the swing vote needed to repeal DC v. Heller. She how it works?
You're the one touting the majority of Americans agree with gun ownership, not me. YOU LOOK IT UP. Oh, that's right, I'm saying the opposite so it's up to me to prove you wrong. No thanks. It's not worth the time finding it just to prove one insignificant American wrong.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3002783
They are willfully commiting an illegal act. That act may very well lead to the deaths of others. Of all the major traumas I've seen, 90% plus were alcohol related.
Willfully committing an illegal act? A drunk person normally doesn't think he/she is impaired enough not to drive. The only illegal thing they do is get behind the wheel AND drive. But not one drunk driver is intentionally getting inside their car with the sole purpose of hitting someone or something. Can't say that about some maniac that walks around with an assault weapon ready to shoot anything that moves. Unless he's drunk.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002327
Come on. You're saying a person who gets into a car drunk, has the sole intention of going out and killing somebody while driving that vehicle? You're just arguing to argue.
Are you saying anyone who buys an assault weapon will use it to kill someone?
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3002812
Are you saying anyone who buys an assault weapon will use it to kill someone?
Only 1% will.
* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998. (3)
* As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.
I think even bird flu has killed more than assault weapons lol
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002804
They are EXCERPTS of speeches or writings. What was stated before that little one liner? Supreme Court rulings get turned over every day. All it takes is to wait for a couple of the conservative judges to kick off, and the whole debate could change. That's the funny part. Ginsberg could die next year, and Obama can select a anti-gun candidate, and could be the swing vote needed to repeal DC v. Heller. She how it works?
You're the one touting the majority of Americans agree with gun ownership, not me. YOU LOOK IT UP. Oh, that's right, I'm saying the opposite so it's up to me to prove you wrong. No thanks. It's not worth the time finding it just to prove one insignificant American wrong.
Sniff! Sniff! whats that smell?Oh its another one of your OPINIONS.

Fact Vs Opinion....You lose
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top