created by: American Patriot | Jan 12, 2013

Columbus, OH

364 votes

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

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No

Comments (Page 13)

Showing posts 241 - 260 of718
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#273
Jan 17, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm not favoring limitations on well-behaved, mentally balanced people. I'm advocating for some sort of in depth screening to weed out those with propensity for sociopathic behavior.

If you've ever driven much you've most likely discover that there are people out there who have no business behind the wheel. Greater societies rights are better preserved the more we can isolate those who pose a danger to the rest of us.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274
Jan 17, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Yet civilian aircraft can be used as weapons as we've seen in our lifetime. Should the SCOTUS rule that private ownership is not permissible?
Wow, the bar just keeps getting lower with you.

The key word is 'arms' is an airplane considered 'arms'? Weapon is a much different word.

You should use a dictionary once in awhile.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275
Jan 17, 2013
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not favoring limitations on well-behaved, mentally balanced people. I'm advocating for some sort of in depth screening to weed out those with propensity for sociopathic behavior.
The danger in what you are proposing is that the science isn't good enough to predict future behavior with any reasonable degree of certainty.

So what are we supposed to do, take guns away from everyone who is treated for depression? Do you think that might do more harm than good, in that many will avoid treatment if they think they're going to be punished for it?
If you've ever driven much you've most likely discover that there are people out there who have no business behind the wheel. Greater societies rights are better preserved the more we can isolate those who pose a danger to the rest of us.
Danger is all around us, 24/7. You're just not aware of most of them. It's the risk we all take every day to live free. Liberty principles don't allow punishing people ahead of time for what (someone else thinks) they MIGHT do. They are either harming you (or violating your superior right) or they're not. If they're not, you have no right to infringe on their freedom.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#276
Jan 18, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you have read it, just what do you think it means, specifically?
woof
It means exactly what I said it means, the second amendment was a personal right to keep and bear arms for your own self defense. It has nothing to do with hunting or target practice or muskets or anything.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#277
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with shouting "Fire" in a theater? The 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." What is ambiguous about the words "shall make no law?"
same as " shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment.

you just want to pick and choose what to enforce.

sorry.....not going to happen.

the 2nd amendment protects you to continue to spread lies and distortions to the real problem.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278
Jan 18, 2013
 
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
same as " shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment.
you just want to pick and choose what to enforce.
sorry.....not going to happen.
the 2nd amendment protects you to continue to spread lies and distortions to the real problem.
You may have missed the point here. While I don't presume to speak for him, I imagine that he was attempting to offer examples of where government instituted limits to constitutional rights are commonly recognized.

The example of yelling fire in a crowded space is a quite popular example to the limits of protected speech.

Similarly, to look at a commonly accepted existing limit to second amendment rights, I might point to the limits on gun ownership placed on felons.

While it would be a lot simpler for legal scholars to live in a world where there were no limits on constitutional rights, the actual day to day living in such an environment would be potentially dreadfully unpleasant!
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#279
Jan 18, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It means exactly what I said it means, the second amendment was a personal right to keep and bear arms for your own self defense. It has nothing to do with hunting or target practice or muskets or anything.
I would agree with that statement. Anything else?

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
Jan 18, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It means exactly what I said it means, the second amendment was a personal right to keep and bear arms for your own self defense. It has nothing to do with hunting or target practice or muskets or anything.
So once again, if you have read Scalia's opinion in Heller, what does it mean?

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283
Jan 18, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You still don't get it.
The act of arms ownership harms no one.
Just as my mouth being capable of [i.e., unrestricted] for speech harms no one.
You don't get it. That is completely irrelevant to the constitutional question.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends. If they think the car would move or evidence destroyed by waiting on a warrant, they can search it. If it's an abandoned car that can easily be secured, there is no reason not to get a warrant.
And if it had a roof it would be a house. You like to add variables to the hypothetical to change the entire question.

The point is, the Fourth Amendment says people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures and that no warrant shall issue without probable cause. That right has been found to extend to areas other than one's person or one's effects and many types of searches are permitted without the issuance of a warrant.

The further point is that whether you "cold dead fingers" folks like it or not, there is more to the Constitution than what a layperson can see by reading the document itself.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#285
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The danger in what you are proposing is that the science isn't good enough to predict future behavior with any reasonable degree of certainty.
So what are we supposed to do, take guns away from everyone who is treated for depression? Do you think that might do more harm than good, in that many will avoid treatment if they think they're going to be punished for it?
<quoted text>
Danger is all around us, 24/7. You're just not aware of most of them. It's the risk we all take every day to live free. Liberty principles don't allow punishing people ahead of time for what (someone else thinks) they MIGHT do. They are either harming you (or violating your superior right) or they're not. If they're not, you have no right to infringe on their freedom.
Should Adam Lanza have had the right to own a firearm? What about Jerod Loughner or James Holmes?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#286
Jan 18, 2013
 
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
same as " shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment.
you just want to pick and choose what to enforce.
sorry.....not going to happen.
the 2nd amendment protects you to continue to spread lies and distortions to the real problem.
Uhh, it's you guys who are picking and choosing, Hoss. The 2d amendment is the same as all the others.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287
Jan 18, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It means exactly what I said it means, the second amendment was a personal right to keep and bear arms for your own self defense. It has nothing to do with hunting or target practice or muskets or anything.
You gotta wonder why it took Scalia 700 pages (intentional exaggeration for literary purposes) to write something so simple.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#288
Jan 18, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have missed the point here. While I don't presume to speak for him, I imagine that he was attempting to offer examples of where government instituted limits to constitutional rights are commonly recognized.
The example of yelling fire in a crowded space is a quite popular example to the limits of protected speech.
Similarly, to look at a commonly accepted existing limit to second amendment rights, I might point to the limits on gun ownership placed on felons.
While it would be a lot simpler for legal scholars to live in a world where there were no limits on constitutional rights, the actual day to day living in such an environment would be potentially dreadfully unpleasant!
Yeah, that's it. The Socratic Method doesn't work very well on Topix. But it's amusing to try.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#289
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it. That is completely irrelevant to the constitutional question.
No, it isn't.

In the theatre, I possess the means to shout, "Fire!"
In this nation, we punish the guilty -- not the innocent.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290
Jan 18, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't.
In the theatre, I possess the means to shout, "Fire!"
In this nation, we punish the guilty -- not the innocent.
I have actually no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here, could you expand on it a bit?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#291
Jan 18, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have missed the point here. While I don't presume to speak for him, I imagine that he was attempting to offer examples of where government instituted limits to constitutional rights are commonly recognized.
The example of yelling fire in a crowded space is a quite popular example to the limits of protected speech.
Similarly, to look at a commonly accepted existing limit to second amendment rights, I might point to the limits on gun ownership placed on felons.
While it would be a lot simpler for legal scholars to live in a world where there were no limits on constitutional rights, the actual day to day living in such an environment would be potentially dreadfully unpleasant!
Beyond the fact that many if not all "rights" within the Constitution might be properly subject to reasonable restrictions depending upon the individual circumstances of the situation being discussed, the other problem people here seem to have is that they cannot grasp the concept that the starting point which defines the actual "right" in question may exclude certain activities simply because they are not included within the boundaries of the right in question to begin with...hence, the right itself is not being restricted at all by the imposition of state regulation...The activity in question simply isn't included in the "right", so any discussion of whether restrictions are "reasonable" for purposes of Constitutional analysis is completely irrelevant, and unnecessary.

Simplest example I can think of...the possession of a nuclear bomb by an individual would not be conduct that would be included within the acts protected under the 2nd Amendment.

These folks who make a blanket statement that the term "shall not be infringed" is directly analogous to "shall not be reasonably restricted" have not one iota of understanding of Constitutional Law.

They try hard...I'll give them that. But they would be better served if they would open their minds a bit and try learning about the law.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292
Jan 18, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I have actually no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here, could you expand on it a bit?
For you, no.
Read the thread.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#293
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't.
In the theatre, I possess the means to shout, "Fire!"
In this nation, we punish the guilty -- not the innocent.
Oh God.

Speech is an act. The 1st amendment says congress shall make no law infringing it. Yet, there are laws against inducing panic. That is because the government can regulate the right of free speech if it has a compelling interest and the regulation is narrowly tailored to meet that interest.

Gun possession is an act. The 2d amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet, there are laws against possessing sawed off shotguns. That is because the government can regulate the right to bear arms if it has a compelling interest and the regulation is narrowly tailored to meet that interest.

Get it?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#294
Jan 18, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond the fact that many if not all "rights" within the Constitution might be properly subject to reasonable restrictions depending upon the individual circumstances of the situation being discussed, the other problem people here seem to have is that they cannot grasp the concept that the starting point which defines the actual "right" in question may exclude certain activities simply because they are not included within the boundaries of the right in question to begin with...hence, the right itself is not being restricted at all by the imposition of state regulation...The activity in question simply isn't included in the "right", so any discussion of whether restrictions are "reasonable" for purposes of Constitutional analysis is completely irrelevant, and unnecessary.
Simplest example I can think of...the possession of a nuclear bomb by an individual would not be conduct that would be included within the acts protected under the 2nd Amendment.
These folks who make a blanket statement that the term "shall not be infringed" is directly analogous to "shall not be reasonably restricted" have not one iota of understanding of Constitutional Law.
They try hard...I'll give them that. But they would be better served if they would open their minds a bit and try learning about the law.
woof
38/50

Best get busy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 241 - 260 of718
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

34 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
What's your favorite lager beer? 4 min d pantz 6
Man Rushed To Hospital After Shooting In East C... 6 min Clinton - Obama 2016 2
Is the Koran a Book of Hate? 6 min Surprise You 30
When will Obama be Arrested???? 8 min Surprise You 5
Is Nevada rancher a freeloader? 9 min Duke for Mayor 255
Is Nevada Rancher a Patriot?? 11 min Surprise You 82
Willnestea@yahoo. com is a Big Scammer 12 min Nelson Muntz 11
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 6 hr Agreed 2,006
•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••