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

Created by American Patriot on Jan 12, 2013

365 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#398 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How so?
If a weapon is used improperly by one who passed the test, the test obviously was deficient.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#399 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That is another misstatement of the law.
Is the requirement to get a driver's license punishment?
Driving has been ruled "not a right".

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#400 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Obscenity has no result. No victim. And yet...
Not true. harm does not have to be physical. Emotional distress of a reasonable person is "harm". Different groups (communities) have different definitions of reasonable, which is why communities have the right to set the bar for their community.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#401 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Nor do we limit them from buying cases (24 round clips) or six-packs (6 round clips).
AZ: Patrons may not purchase for on premises consumption more than 40 ounces of beer, 1 liter of wine or 4 ounces of distilled spirits at one time.

FL: No retail sale of wine in containers larger than 1 gallon.

PN: Beer can be purchased at beverage outlets (cases only), or restaurants (six-packs/restricted quantities) with Liquor Control Board–issued licenses

for places with a limit on the actual units you can get, almost every state has a limit on how much you can have, ABV for each type of booze, as well.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#402 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. harm does not have to be physical. Emotional distress of a reasonable person is "harm". Different groups (communities) have different definitions of reasonable, which is why communities have the right to set the bar for their community.
I see. So unquantified emotional distress is a legitimate reason to limit a constitutional right.

Would not a firm statistical link to a public health threat prove as compelling?

As an aside, the community test in the Miller test is the most useless thing I've ever heard of in modern law. In an era where communications allow for the construction of communities sharing information privately from their homes, using the end user's residence to determine a community for local standards seems wonderfully counterproductive.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#403 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
we have not seen it's limits by a long shot.

that sheriff in Arizona who makes prisoners wear pink and live in tents eating bread and water only is as close as we tested the limits.

give me a break.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#404 Jan 18, 2013
I'm actually wonderfully interested in this argument. The idea that your community should be able to regulate the books you read, video you watch and the art you see but shouldn't have a say in the firearms held within it.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#405 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
AZ: Patrons may not purchase for on premises consumption more than 40 ounces of beer, 1 liter of wine or 4 ounces of distilled spirits at one time.
FL: No retail sale of wine in containers larger than 1 gallon.
PN: Beer can be purchased at beverage outlets (cases only), or restaurants (six-packs/restricted quantities) with Liquor Control Board–issued licenses
for places with a limit on the actual units you can get, almost every state has a limit on how much you can have, ABV for each type of booze, as well.
That's how much you can purchase at one time, not how much you can possess if acquired legally.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#406 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That is another misstatement of the law.
Is the requirement to get a driver's license punishment?
A driver's license is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected right.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#407 Jan 18, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
we have not seen it's limits by a long shot.
that sheriff in Arizona who makes prisoners wear pink and live in tents eating bread and water only is as close as we tested the limits.
give me a break.
Hush dear, the grown ups are talking now. You come back in a bit when things aren't as wonderfully interesting and oddly constructive as they are at the moment.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#408 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So unquantified emotional distress is a legitimate reason to limit a constitutional right.
Would not a firm statistical link to a public health threat prove as compelling?
As an aside, the community test in the Miller test is the most useless thing I've ever heard of in modern law. In an era where communications allow for the construction of communities sharing information privately from their homes, using the end user's residence to determine a community for local standards seems wonderfully counterproductive.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that illegal gun possession is a "passive and victimless crime" and that those charged with having illicit firearms cannot be held without bail as a danger to society.

Therefore, how can anyone hold there is a "legitimate reason to limit" the constitutional right to bear arms?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#409 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So unquantified emotional distress is a legitimate reason to limit a constitutional right.

I didn't say unquantified... It's usually to the "resonable person" standard.

[QUOTE]Would not a firm statistical link to a public health threat prove as compelling?
I don't see one. Crime has been falling, despite an increase in gun sales.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#410 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's how much you can purchase at one time, not how much you can possess if acquired legally.
There are areas in the US where possession is banned entirely...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#411 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That is fine. But your opposition to the restriction does not make the restriction unconstitutional.
That's why we have levels of scrutiny when determining such.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#412 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
There are areas in the US where possession is banned entirely...
In one's home? Where?

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#413 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that illegal gun possession is a "passive and victimless crime" and that those charged with having illicit firearms cannot be held without bail as a danger to society.
Therefore, how can anyone hold there is a "legitimate reason to limit" the constitutional right to bear arms?
Let me see if I'm understanding your argument.

MA ruled that illegal possession isn't classed with violent crimes and cannot be administered as such.

And because of this you think that the second amendment should have no limit?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#414 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Hush dear, the grown ups are talking now. You come back in a bit when things aren't as wonderfully interesting and oddly constructive as they are at the moment.
and when you grow up, you can join the conversation.

you are talking about nothing that does nothing; and find that interesting?

figures

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see one. Crime has been falling, despite an increase in gun sales.
Crime has indeed been falling. While deaths from firearms have grown from roughly 27,000 in 2000 to roughly 33,000 in 2012.

Deaths from HIV/AIDS constitute a public health crisis, swinging between 15k and 22k in a 10 year window.

To pretend that the prevalence of firearms in American culture hasn't contributed greatly to mortality rates seems a bit too bold a claim.

Gun control in my option is really the collective assessment of how many lives are acceptable to lose, and in what context, in the balance of firearms access. It may well be that as a culture, we're comfortable with 33,000 deaths a year. I'm quite interested to see if we'll continue to remain willing to accept this cost if the numbers continue to rise as they have over the past decade.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#416 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see if I'm understanding your argument.
MA ruled that illegal possession isn't classed with violent crimes and cannot be administered as such.
And because of this you think that the second amendment should have no limit?
the limit of the 2nd amendment is the end of a gun barrel; and reason you dislike it.

quit beating around the bush and admit it.

just because you fear ultimate reality, does not provide an argument for legislating law abiding citizens.

maybe you just need to live your life so you are not looking at a barrel pointed at you.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#417 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see if I'm understanding your argument.
MA ruled that illegal possession isn't classed with violent crimes and cannot be administered as such.
And because of this you think that the second amendment should have no limit?
Possession of a firearm harms no one.
Apparently, the MA Court agrees.

More to the point, the Constitution constrains government from infringement.
The MA Court decision merely confirms what I have been saying all along: gun possession is passive and victimless; and gun bans restrict the rights of innocent Americans.

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
Black Crime is out of control. 2 hr Versace 70
NAACP calls for calm in Cleveland 7 hr They cannot kill ... 7
Protesters 8 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 7
Al Sharpton coming to Cleveland...... 8 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 15
News Al-Maliki: U.S. forces wona t stay after 2011 |... (Nov '10) 9 hr swedenforever 5
Cleveland Cop Found NOT GUILTY In Deadly 2012 S... 9 hr cops win again 4
Brelo not guilty 13 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 37
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]