Are you in favor of a ban on assault ...

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

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#460 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>And why would you wave to a random stranger and call him jack unless your intent is to cause a panic by the way you approached it. You failed miserably again.
And BTW, you do not need to worry about my employment, I'm wealthy enough as it is.
Reader's Law

The claims of wealth by Topix posters is inversely related to the intelligence of their posts.
Robert

Lees Summit, MO

#461 Jan 18, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Automobiles claim 35k lives a year. We should ban cars!!

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#462 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>And you do not have the ability to express a complete thought. You did not say there were no autoloading guns when the the constitution was created, you said they were all single shot.
Just because you want to take and apples to oranges comparison and turn it into applesauce and orange duck comparisons does not show a lack of my intelligence.
And of course I agree with your position on a few things, just not when you are clueless wrong. A double barrel shotgun, A clock work gun, A double barrel musket is not a single shot gun. You load and ready the gun and bu simply pulling the trigger either partial increments or multiple time, you have multiple shots available without stopping and reloading. That technology was available and in use (although not highly reliable) before and when the US constitution was created.
When the constitution was written, double barrel shotguns didn't exist. A clockwork gun was prohibitively expensive and quite a rare item. So, 99,999 out of every 100,000 arms that were possessed and in use at the time of the constitution could only fire a single shot at a time. Even a double barrel musket could only fire a shot at a time. Granted two shots should be fired with rapid succession but again, these were rare beasts.

I get it now, you agree with me when your stupidity is pointed out and you disagree with me just for pointing out said stupidity.

Dude, you're exposing yourself all alone, keep going, I can see the streaks you missed while attempting to wipe.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#463 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>And why would you wave to a random stranger and call him jack unless your intent is to cause a panic by the way you approached it. You failed miserably again.
And BTW, you do not need to worry about my employment, I'm wealthy enough as it is.
Ahh, backing off of your allegation when presented with overwhelming evidence. You have to be related to Zero.

Um, you proved the other day that you have no clue what wealth is, if I gave you a nickel, you'd only need 1 more to have two to rub together.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#464 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not worthy of a response.
Go back to school...or get a refund.
Yet in your infantile outburst, you can't help but respond.

You idiots are so much fun to observe.

Just like the monkeys at the zoo, only the crap they fling has more substance than all the words you've ever posted.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#465 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Nor do we limit them from buying cases (24 round clips) or six-packs (6 round clips).
Do we regulate the sale of alcohol?

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#466 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No you do not get a state administrated militia. For one, when the constitution was created, the stated were not allowed to have militias or standing armies except in a time of war. Go ahead and read it, it is in the US constitution still.
You are also wrong about the individual right to a fire arm. It hasn't been until somewhat recently that the right has been claimed to mean only a military. If you weren't too lazy to look it up, you would realize that in the opinions, they relied heavily on the understandings of the right back when the constitution was fresh and understood without all this living breathing bullshit that essentially allows it to be changed without amending it. They looked at writings by founders, writings by politicians, states and territories who enacted the same constitutions and amendments and came to the conclusion that it always was a right of the person.
You've never even read the second amendment, have you?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What was that you were saying about a state run militia being prohibited?

It was the federal government who was not to keep a standing army.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#467 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>The entire beer verses guns argument is a little lost in the first place. The repeal of prohibition specifically allows the states to create their own laws, rules and regulation concerning the subject of alcohol. It is entirely constitutional for a state to require limits on the amount of open container served or that alcohol only be purchased from certain places and so on. The second amendment makes no provisions for this.
If the issue of alcohol is left entirely to the states, then why, in 1987 or so did the feds raise the national drinking age to 21 and threatened to cut off highway funding to any state that didn't comply? With great success, I might add.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#468 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Possession of a gun [in this case, an "illegal" gun] was deemed not to be "dangerous."
In fact, possession was deemed to be "passive and victimless," with the Judge restating the plain fact that "it is the unlawful USE of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."
Citizen possession of firearms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Nothing -- outside of criminal USE -- should "infringe" that constitutional right.
Just exactly how does a MA court ruling transfer to the authority of the federal government and the 2nd amendment?

That's right, it doesn't.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#469 Jan 18, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Reader's Law
The claims of wealth by Topix posters is inversely related to the intelligence of their posts.
Well, know I know you know I barely get by!!
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#470 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If a weapon is used improperly by one who passed the test, the test obviously was deficient.
What test?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#471 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Driving has been ruled "not a right".
That has nothing to do with your punishment claim.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#472 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.
We (humans) have implemented the death penalty for everything from theft to murder. Today, we still have theft and murder. Your theory doesn't work.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#473 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Possession of a gun [in this case, an "illegal" gun] was deemed not to be "dangerous."
In fact, possession was deemed to be "passive and victimless," with the Judge restating the plain fact that "it is the unlawful USE of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."
Citizen possession of firearms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Nothing -- outside of criminal USE -- should "infringe" that constitutional right.
Go read the rule at issue. That was a question of whether the defendant should be out on bond.

Nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

you're foolish.

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#474 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?
Yet the illegal possession of a gun is still illegal. Hmmmm.

You do get that, don't you? That the "passive and victimless crime" is still nonetheless a crime?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#475 Jan 18, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Go read the rule at issue. That was a question of whether the defendant should be out on bond.
Nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.
you're foolish.
woof
Right...a gun-related case has "nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever."

/s
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#476 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to interrupt your cranial-rectal copulation again...
...but the limits you and the others have attempted to compare to gun limits fail in the final analysis because gun possession has been proven to be passive and victimless, making any physical restriction on possession a direct abrogation of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
You do realize that no one of any constitutional sophistication or significance agrees with you, right?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#477 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the illegal possession of a gun is still illegal. Hmmmm.
You do get that, don't you? That the "passive and victimless crime" is still nonetheless a crime?
Unlike you, I acknowledge the utter absurdity of the law deeming a gun to be "illegal" when a judge acknowledges the following plain fact:

"That a person possesses a firearm without a valid license does not itself pose a substantial risk that physical force against another may result. Rather, it is the unlawful use of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."

Cognitive dissonance.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#478 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as thick as a whale omelette.
From the MA Court ruling:
"While we are cognizant that unlicensed possessors of firearms may use firearms unlawfully, unlicensed possession of a firearm itself is a regulatory crime," Spina wrote. "It is passive and victimless." Spina added: "That a person possesses a firearm without a valid license does not itself pose a substantial risk that physical force against another may result. Rather, it is the unlawful use of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."
Unlawful USE -- not POSSESSION.
It is crystal clear that gun bans abrogate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
You seem to be selectively refusing to read the words "is a regulatory crime." You also seem to not understand that the issue in the case was bail, not the constitutionality of a restriction on firearm possession. In fact, the constitutionality of the restriction on possession is sooooooo obvious, it is not even discussed.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#479 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>First, if you believe everything you read on the internet, I have an investment opportunity for you.
You are the one who said you were a 50 year old high school dropout. Are you saying you are a liar?

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
Donald Trump didn't win because he's Donald Trump 1 hr jonjedi 201
Russia Hates USA,Loves Trump. Electors voting f... 1 hr jonjedi 360
President Trump Rally 2017 Florida 1 hr jonjedi 42
America Held Hostage Day 32 2 hr MarkJ- 3
Who is the Biggest Liar? 3 hr jonjedi 16
What is happening in Sweden? 3 hr sally 10
Dems Progress To A New Low 5 hr jonjedi 206

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages