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

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#295 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
I have a very hard time believing anyone in this discussion is stupid enough to think that these rights exist without restriction.

It's not a matter of legal knowledge, this is rather common sense.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#296 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
38/50
Best get busy.
Do you believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#297 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
For you, no.
Read the thread.
I have. Your comment doesn't make a massive amount of sense, which is why I asked if you could clarify it a bit.

Are you saying that retaining the ability to engage in speech which is restricted even under first amendment guidelines, though it is punishable by law in some way translates to some of the larger points you've been trying to make about second amendment rights?

I'm not really seeing it.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#298 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a very hard time believing anyone in this discussion is stupid enough to think that these rights exist without restriction.
It's not a matter of legal knowledge, this is rather common sense.
They don't believe that rights exist without restriction. They believe that THEIR rights exist without restriction. They are all for restrictions that impact other people. They are the first to cry out when a criminal defendant "gets off on a technicality" because her rights had been violated. The only time they pretend to care about rights is when the government reaches into their little worlds. Then, Lo and Behold, rights matter.

I think that rather than stupidity, although there is a healthy dose of that involved, it is rank hypocrisy that fuels their position.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#299 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Firing off my mouth or my gun is an act.
Possessing the means to do so is passive.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#300 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a very hard time believing anyone in this discussion is stupid enough to think that these rights exist without restriction.
It's not a matter of legal knowledge, this is rather common sense.
Therein lies the source of the problem I suppose.

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#301 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Firing off my mouth or my gun is an act.
Possessing the means to do so is passive.
That is simply wrong. Possession of the sawed off shotgun is illegal. Possessing a larynx is not.

Are you serious about this or are you just trying to be difficult?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#302 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Firing off my mouth or my gun is an act.
Possessing the means to do so is passive.
With the mouth I suppose you're right.

Not with the weapon, though.

Regardless, its irrelevant. You simply don't have a grasp of the subject matter you're trying to argue.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#303 Jan 18, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
With the mouth I suppose you're right.
Not with the weapon, though.
Regardless, its irrelevant. You simply don't have a grasp of the subject matter you're trying to argue.
woof
In other words, you refuse to follow the logic to its natural conclusion.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#305 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That is simply wrong. Possession of the sawed off shotgun is illegal. Possessing a larynx is not.
Are you serious about this or are you just trying to be difficult?
Well, thank God, the government has been constrained from duct-taping my mouth closed...or removing my larynx.

You still don't get it.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#304 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Should Adam Lanza have had the right to own a firearm? What about Jerod Loughner or James Holmes?
Adam Lanza was not old enough to own a handgun by current law.

The other 2 I believe were.

The justice department just needs to serve justice to those who refuse the very fist gun law God handed Moses.

Thou shall not kill.

If you do.....chain gang for life....slave so to speak.

Easy solve to entire manner.....don't kill.

next case....this one is well worn out and boring. If you refuse to solve root cause, then expect a continuation of same behavior.
hroola

Rochester, PA

#306 Jan 18, 2013

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#307 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Firing off my mouth or my gun is an act.
Possessing the means to do so is passive.
Legally, possession is an act as well.

Hence all the statues on possession of various items and/or materials.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#308 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, thank God, the government has been constrained from duct-taping my mouth closed...or removing my larynx.
You still don't get it.
That's because there is nothing to get.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#309 Jan 18, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam Lanza was not old enough to own a handgun by current law.
The other 2 I believe were.
The justice department just needs to serve justice to those who refuse the very fist gun law God handed Moses.
Thou shall not kill.
If you do.....chain gang for life....slave so to speak.
Easy solve to entire manner.....don't kill.
next case....this one is well worn out and boring. If you refuse to solve root cause, then expect a continuation of same behavior.
If -tip- is right and there is no constitutional way to restrict gun rights, how in the world was Connecticut able to restrict gun ownership to those 21 or older?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#310 Jan 18, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam Lanza was not old enough to own a handgun by current law.
The other 2 I believe were.
The justice department just needs to serve justice to those who refuse the very fist gun law God handed Moses.
Thou shall not kill.
If you do.....chain gang for life....slave so to speak.
Easy solve to entire manner.....don't kill.
next case....this one is well worn out and boring. If you refuse to solve root cause, then expect a continuation of same behavior.
You do realize that the society has been implementing your "easy solve" method since Moses came off the mountain, don't you? We have seen its limits.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#312 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't you explain why we don't slap duct tape on the mouths of movie-goers?
Are you certain we can't?

And by "we," to whom are you referring? Owners of movie theaters? Other patrons? Some arm of government?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#313 Jan 18, 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.
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.
The two drunken dingbats who were unwittingly shooting up their neighborhood using unbacked paper targets for practice with their AK-47s apparently passed the background check.

Guess we don't screen for stupid.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#314 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because there is nothing to get.
The majority possesses the means to harm other individuals by shouting, "Fire!" while inside a crowded theatre; why, then, hasn't the government removed and/or restricted our means to do so?

The majority possesses the means to harm other individuals by running them over, at will, with our automobiles; why, then, hasn't the government removed and/or restricted our means to do so?

The majority possesses the means to burn down our neighbors' homes; why, then, hasn't the government removed and/or restricted our means to do so?

Gun-grabbers comprise the theatre of the absurd.
Use duct tape while inside.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#315 Jan 18, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you certain we can't?
And by "we," to whom are you referring? Owners of movie theaters? Other patrons? Some arm of government?
ROFLMAO. Naturally, YOU would desire to.

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
Unaccompanied kids escape Central America to un... 1 min Zoe Regen 10
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 5 min Male 3,314
Carolyn Bruck, channel 6 (Jan '12) 13 min Pete Scalia 314
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 13 min educated enough 2,424
Palin: Brawl In The Family 14 min beige people rule 8
To many kids dieing 36 min Seriouslady 10
Mother Shot Over Tennis Shoes 1 hr yeah baby yeah 1
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 9 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 181
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••