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
281 - 300 of 718 Comments Last updated Jan 26, 2013

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#316
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And you can't even blame it on the London fog....

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#317
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.
Again, tip. You err by equating regulation and punishment.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#318
Jan 18, 2013
 
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Nowhere does the Constitution set an age of majority.
There's a pot ready to be stirred, no?

The Tenth Amendment allows CT to set its own regulations.
Doesn't mean they can't be challenged.

Twenty-one is absurd, considering those younger can enlist and thus possess all manner of arms.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#319
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO. Naturally, YOU would desire to.
If you are going to offer up absurd situations, you need to be able to defend them.

Answer the questions.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#320
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That is a matter of policy, not a matter of constitutional law. The majority has not chosen to enact the laws that you have used for your example. Therefore, the constitution never comes into play. If the majority did choose to enact those laws, then if the constitutionality of those laws were challanged, the court would have to determine if the law enfringed on a fundamental right and, if so, was the enfringement narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.

Isn't the law neat?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#321
Jan 18, 2013
 
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
That is simply quite a conundrum, isn't it?

woof

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#322
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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've read the constitution and amendments several times over the years and nowhere in there are the following:

A punk from out of nowhere is the arbiter of the amendments (as you assert your are)

The words 'self defense'

The words 'hunting' or 'target practice'

The word 'muskets'

So, Mr. Self Important, you're left with your own delusion, as usual.

Remember, when that amendment was written, all arms were single shot.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#323
Jan 18, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere does the Constitution set an age of majority.
There's a pot ready to be stirred, no?
The Tenth Amendment allows CT to set its own regulations.
Doesn't mean they can't be challenged.
Twenty-one is absurd, considering those younger can enlist and thus possess all manner of arms.
I wonder why no one has challenged it then.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#326
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
-tip- will never get very simple concepts.

Here's a clue for him and an answer to your question. The 2nd amendment applies only to the federal government and not the states.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#327
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.
It is different with the second amendment. Shouting fire in a theater has lost a lot of it's original meaning but at one time before fire code and all, a fire in a theater could mean near certainty of mass deaths. Theaters at one time had limited ways in and out that couldn't accommodate the occupancy levels. When you combine that with uses of highly flammable materials, even in an orderly exit, often people would be overcome by smoke before 3/4 of the theater could exit.

But here is the catch, they didn't outlaw the theaters, they didn't outlaw yelling fire in a crowded theater. They created consequences for when you actions damaged others unjustly. Another example of this is when you are the leader of a group of people and make a statement that person X must die and the crowd proceeds to kill person X. It's not illegal to say person X must die, but if something happens because of it, you can be held accountable for those results. To compare this with the second amendment, you would need to allow people to keep arms and assess penalties for when they used those arms resulting in the harm or extreme likelihood of harm of others.

It's not picking and choosing, it is consequences for your actions when they harm others.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#328
Jan 18, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It is different with the second amendment. Shouting fire in a theater has lost a lot of it's original meaning but at one time before fire code and all, a fire in a theater could mean near certainty of mass deaths. Theaters at one time had limited ways in and out that couldn't accommodate the occupancy levels. When you combine that with uses of highly flammable materials, even in an orderly exit, often people would be overcome by smoke before 3/4 of the theater could exit.
But here is the catch, they didn't outlaw the theaters, they didn't outlaw yelling fire in a crowded theater. They created consequences for when you actions damaged others unjustly. Another example of this is when you are the leader of a group of people and make a statement that person X must die and the crowd proceeds to kill person X. It's not illegal to say person X must die, but if something happens because of it, you can be held accountable for those results. To compare this with the second amendment, you would need to allow people to keep arms and assess penalties for when they used those arms resulting in the harm or extreme likelihood of harm of others.
It's not picking and choosing, it is consequences for your actions when they harm others.
So, in your divine wisdom, why was it illegal to even whisper the word 'hijack' anywhere near an airport after the late 1960's?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#329
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
-tip- will never get very simple concepts.
Here's a clue for him and an answer to your question. The 2nd amendment applies only to the federal government and not the states.
Actually, the Supreme Court decided that issue in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.

It does apply to the individual states.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#330
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
-tip- will never get very simple concepts.
Here's a clue for him and an answer to your question. The 2nd amendment applies only to the federal government and not the states.
Reading comprehension issues, among your myriad other issues?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#331
Jan 18, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It is different with the second amendment. Shouting fire in a theater has lost a lot of it's original meaning but at one time before fire code and all, a fire in a theater could mean near certainty of mass deaths. Theaters at one time had limited ways in and out that couldn't accommodate the occupancy levels. When you combine that with uses of highly flammable materials, even in an orderly exit, often people would be overcome by smoke before 3/4 of the theater could exit.
But here is the catch, they didn't outlaw the theaters, they didn't outlaw yelling fire in a crowded theater. They created consequences for when you actions damaged others unjustly. Another example of this is when you are the leader of a group of people and make a statement that person X must die and the crowd proceeds to kill person X. It's not illegal to say person X must die, but if something happens because of it, you can be held accountable for those results. To compare this with the second amendment, you would need to allow people to keep arms and assess penalties for when they used those arms resulting in the harm or extreme likelihood of harm of others.
It's not picking and choosing, it is consequences for your actions when they harm others.
The above is two paragraphs of meaningless drivel.

The imposition of "consequences" is what occurs during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial, or during the damages phase of a civil trial.

Inducing panic and making false alarms by statute are crimes.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.31
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.32

Theoretically, one could engage in that sort of conduct and be held both criminally and civilly liable for it.

There's absolutely no valid analogy to second amendment rights here.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#332
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in your divine wisdom, why was it illegal to even whisper the word 'hijack' anywhere near an airport after the late 1960's?
Hysteria.
The same driver of modern gun control measures.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#333
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Adif understanding wrote:
they didn't outlaw yelling fire in a crowded theater.
The whole point behind that example is that yelling fire in a crowded theater would be illegal despite first amendment protections for free speech.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#334
Jan 18, 2013
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
-tip- will never get very simple concepts.
Here's a clue for him and an answer to your question. The 2nd amendment applies only to the federal government and not the states.
Not according to McDonald v. Chicago.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#335
Jan 18, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hysteria.
The same driver of modern gun control measures.
Seeing second graders gunned down in the safety of their classrooms is hysterical.

woof
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#336
Jan 18, 2013
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the constitution and amendments several times over the years and nowhere in there are the following:
A punk from out of nowhere is the arbiter of the amendments (as you assert your are)
The words 'self defense'
The words 'hunting' or 'target practice'
The word 'muskets'
So, Mr. Self Important, you're left with your own delusion, as usual.
Remember, when that amendment was written, all arms were single shot.
I've read the constitution several times and even read court decisions that have interpreted them. Out side of you mentioning something about a punk from out of nowhere, you have parroted my position until you start thinking you are smart and bring up the single shot argument that is an abysmal failure in logic as well as outright false. There where multiple shot firearms when the second amendment was written. Double barrel muskets and clockwork muskets where in use 75-100 years before the constitution was written. The courts have already hashed out that the second amendment is not limited to just single shot weapons.

Multiple shots mean nothing. I see idiots shout about 100 rounds being fired at the sandy hook school shooting. Someone with a musket could have fired over 200 aimed shots between the time the first shot was fired and the police entered the building. A skilled person could have loaded, aimed, and fired almost 250 shots with a single shot musket. In all these situations, someone is not poking their heads in the door and emptying a magazine then running away. They are entering, shooting, moving around shooting some more, then either standing off with the cops or killing themselves well after the time it takes to discharge 100 rounds in a modern semiautomatic.

So once again, you have proven to the world how unintelligent you are. You cannot even read a post a comprehend what was on it or think about what you are doing.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#337
Jan 18, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole point behind that example is that yelling fire in a crowded theater would be illegal despite first amendment protections for free speech.
And not a single government restriction has been enacted to remove the possibility.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

25 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Do we need to impeach Obama to save America? 15 min Muslims LIE 67
Do you agree with Obama's plan to fundamentally... 44 min Neutral Party 79
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 56 min Neutral Party 2,922
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 57 min xxxrayted 29,388
Trump Says Obama "Biggest Liar I Know" 1 hr Muslims LIE 7
Do You Agree With GOP Plan To Abolish Social Se... 6 hr d pantz 22
palin: americans will support impeachment if...... 7 hr Duke for Mayor 42
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 7 hr Curmudgeon 844
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••