Are you in favor of a ban on assault style rifles?

Created by American Patriot on Jan 12, 2013

364 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#212 Jan 17, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
"Infringe" certainly does not have the same meaning as "reasonably restrict".
As I've told you before...your knowledge of Constitutional Law is seriously lacking, and that causes you to arrive at seriously mistaken conclusions.
woof
Repeat: The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government.

The phrase "shall not be infringed" is not ambiguous. Leftists endlessly attempt to assign vagueness and invent loopholes in the Constitution to achieve their overall goal of convincing the public that the document is deeply flawed.

As I stated earlier, if Leftists are convinced that US citizens want the government to impose infringements (i.e., restrictions) on the right to bear arms, then they should prepare an amendment for ratification...by three-fourths of the states.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#213 Jan 17, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I was up in arms when the constitution got trashed by Bush and unlike most who were, I'm still up in arms about it now that Obama is president and those same violations and more are still happening and exist under his watch. In fact, without even getting into the gun control issues, Obama has expanded Bush's trashing and even went as far as exerting the right to up and kill (assassinate) US citizens by declaring them enemy combatants and pushing the button for a drone strike.
You are right, I am in the school of rationalization. But I'm an absolute rationalist if you must label. Rationalization needs to exist else bad guy tries to kill good guy but dies and good guy lives would result in good guy getting the full wrath of the law. But while you can rationalize the enforcement of laws, laws in the US can only be valid if they are consistent with the powers and restrictions of the Constitution that empowers government to create such laws. You can have a defense to a violation of the law (often the defense of necessity), you cannot have a defense to a violation of the constitution.
(picking myself up) You actually posted something intelligible and amazingly it aligns exactly to what I promote, go figure.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#214 Jan 17, 2013
Scalia, in the holding of Heller:

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290....

The Court of Appeals, on remand, after DC amended the prior firearms legislation previously at issue in the Supreme Court in Heller:

"We hold the District had the authority under DC law to promulgate the challenged gun laws,and we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements. We remand the other registration requirements to the district court for further proceedings because the record is insufficient to inform our resolution of the important constitutional issues presented."

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinion... $file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

Go read for yourself. You don't know what you're talking about.

woof

Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#215 Jan 17, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeat: The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government.
The phrase "shall not be infringed" is not ambiguous. Leftists endlessly attempt to assign vagueness and invent loopholes in the Constitution to achieve their overall goal of convincing the public that the document is deeply flawed.
As I stated earlier, if Leftists are convinced that US citizens want the government to impose infringements (i.e., restrictions) on the right to bear arms, then they should prepare an amendment for ratification...by three-fourths of the states.
Scalia is a "Leftist"?

That's funny.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#216 Jan 17, 2013
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinion... $file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#218 Jan 17, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia is a "Leftist"?
That's funny.
woof
Changes are to be accomplished by amendment -- not interpretation.
Surely, you do not believe every Supreme Court decision to be proper?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#219 Jan 17, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Changes are to be accomplished by amendment -- not interpretation.
Surely, you do not believe every Supreme Court decision to be proper?
Surely, you don't enjoy actually reading Article III Court opinions.

Its easier to criticize when you don't have to look at or understand the actual historical presentation of precedent, and logical analysis, isn't it?

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#220 Jan 17, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely, you don't enjoy actually reading Article III Court opinions.
Its easier to criticize when you don't have to look at or understand the actual historical presentation of precedent, and logical analysis, isn't it?
woof
There IS no precedent for infringement.

“The Constitution’s text has as little to say about restrictions on firearm ownership by felons as it does about the trimesters of pregnancy.”

-– Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, 4th Circuit, on the Heller opinion
Adif understanding

United States

#221 Jan 17, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it has not been "hashed out" through Heller.
The holding of Heller is specific to the facts presented in that case.
Read it again, if you even have. Then read the DC circuit's opinion on remand from the Supreme Court.
You're mistaken.
woof
Sigh, heller was the DC gun ban. I have read it and it relied heavily on historical notions of the same. you seem to be confused or something.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#222 Jan 17, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh, heller was the DC gun ban. I have read it and it relied heavily on historical notions of the same. you seem to be confused or something.
Well, if you have read it, just what do you think it means, specifically?

woof

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#223 Jan 17, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
"People control" and "personal liberty" are contradictory.
Not really. Controlling who has access to weapons merely lends to a freer society for all. Just the same as a drunk should not be driving a vehicle, his freedom to do such is outweighed by all of society's right to life, liberty and happiness.

My position has always been, we need more weapons, just in the correct hands.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#224 Jan 17, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Controlling who has access to weapons merely lends to a freer society for all. Just the same as a drunk should not be driving a vehicle, his freedom to do such is outweighed by all of society's right to life, liberty and happiness.
Yet we do not impose limitations on people who don't drive drunk because of the idiots who do. Laws are about consequences for bad behavior, not infringing on the rights of well-behaved people.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#225 Jan 17, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeat: The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government.
The phrase "shall not be infringed" is not ambiguous. Leftists endlessly attempt to assign vagueness and invent loopholes in the Constitution to achieve their overall goal of convincing the public that the document is deeply flawed.
As I stated earlier, if Leftists are convinced that US citizens want the government to impose infringements (i.e., restrictions) on the right to bear arms, then they should prepare an amendment for ratification...by three-fourths of the states.
Do you consider Justice Scalia to be a "leftist?"

You should take some time and read the Heller decision and see what a self proclaimed strict constructionist has to say about the 2d amendment.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#226 Jan 17, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Changes are to be accomplished by amendment -- not interpretation.
Surely, you do not believe every Supreme Court decision to be proper?
How can a person be so thoroughly misinformed and wrong and so self impressed at the same time?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#227 Jan 17, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How can a person be so thoroughly misinformed and wrong and so self impressed at the same time?
A hard question for you, no doubt.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#228 Jan 17, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How can a person be so thoroughly misinformed and wrong and so self impressed at the same time?
Kosmik is over that-away...next to Walt.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#229 Jan 17, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A hard question for you, no doubt.
This should be fun.

Should the police be able to search a car stopped on the side of the road if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a murder but don't have a warrant?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#230 Jan 17, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you consider Justice Scalia to be a "leftist?"
You should take some time and read the Heller decision and see what a self proclaimed strict constructionist has to say about the 2d amendment.
Obviously, Scalia strayed from a strict constructionist opinion on the matter.
The Framers had a lot to say on the right -- in fact, necessity -- of citizens to bear arms.
Never once did they mention restrictions.

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document that changes with the times.
It is to be changed only by Amendment.

Go for it.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#231 Jan 17, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
This should be fun.
Should the police be able to search a car stopped on the side of the road if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a murder but don't have a warrant?
We're discussing the 14 words contained in the Second Amendment.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#232 Jan 17, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, Scalia strayed from a strict constructionist opinion on the matter.
The Framers had a lot to say on the right -- in fact, necessity -- of citizens to bear arms.
Never once did they mention restrictions.
The Constitution is not a living, breathing document that changes with the times.
It is to be changed only by Amendment.
Go for it.
So you don't have any problems with an individual possessing a dirty bomb?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 5 min Neutral Party 4,800
Public Flogging 1 hr Jose 19
CIA Torture Report Comes Out Tomorrow 1 hr Kasim 335
The Republican Controlled House and Senate 1 hr Pale Rider 50
Censoring Male. 2 hr yep 14
Merry Christmas! What's your favorite memory? 2 hr yup 283
Topix gets rid of Canton and Twinsburg posters!!! 3 hr Big Papa Tea 28
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:03 pm PST

ESPN 1:03PM
Browns' Mingo fined $16,537 for hit on Dalton
ESPN 1:03 PM
Browns' Mingo fined $16,537 for hit on Dalton
NFL 1:47 PM
'Sound FX' spies Manziel's meeting with Marvin Lewis
NFL 1:47 PM
'Sound FX' spies Manziel's meeting with Marvin Lewis
Yahoo! Sports 2:09 PM
RT Eric Winston quickly settling in with Bengals