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

Created by American Patriot on Jan 12, 2013

364 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#480 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Like I said, cognitive dissonance.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#481 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I believe you are confused. The only reason why yelling fire in a theater would be a limit is because the result would obviously be a panic. This is because of theaters being notoriously a death trap in the past in which they are not now. Without that context, the entire example falls apart. It's a dated example. The entire point of the example was what would happen because of the speech. It did not suggest anyone do anything illegal, it did not suggest anyone do anything specific. What it did was create an alarm and panic the crowd and served no other purpose then doing so. It is the results of the speech that can make the speech illegal, not the speech itself.
The only other example you brought up which might be the speech itself is the obscenity. The rest are due to the likelihood of violating the laws or harming persons as a result of the content of the speech. You and I conspiring on how to rob a bank is not illegal, we can even print it in a book without retribution. But when either you or I gather the tools or take steps to bring that conspiracy to action, then we have problems. Do you see how this works?
The justification for the limitation on constitutional rights really doesn't matter. The fact is that constitutional rights can be limited. Get it?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#482 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Right...a gun-related case has "nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever."
/s
No.

A case involving whether a procedural rule requires a hearing before a defendant is bonded out pending trial is not a 2nd Amendment case.

Where do you practice law?

woof
Adif understanding

United States

#483 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.
My law, I don't care what you think.:)

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#484 Jan 18, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
A case involving whether a procedural rule requires a hearing before a defendant is bonded out pending trial is not a 2nd Amendment case.
Where do you practice law?
woof
Any case referencing possession of a firearm comprises the body of law related to the Second Amendment.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#485 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.
You may be the most obtuse and obstinate person I have ever encountered. I have never seen someone so married to such an absolutely wrong opinion in the face of such overwhelming information to the contrary. It is pathological and fascinating.
Adif understanding

United States

#486 Jan 18, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
A double barrel shotgun most certainly did exist. look up a double barrel blunderbus. As for the costs of the guns, it doesn't matter, they existed and the founders knew of them. A semi automatic can only fire one shot at a time too. You are failing miserable again. Just because you imagine it so does not make it so.

As for the agreement/disagreement. As I clearly laid the case in the other thread when I exposed you for a shallow idiot, nothing is all or nothing. I do not disagree with everything you say because I disagree with one thing you say. Get fucking real man. Seek some damn help or something. People are right on certain things then sometimes wrong on others. No grow up and pretend to be an adult.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#487 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Any case referencing possession of a firearm comprises the body of law related to the Second Amendment.
Are you on drugs?

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#488 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Right...a gun-related case has "nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever."
/s
The first thing that you have said that is actually accurate. Good job.
Adif understanding

United States

#489 Jan 18, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm not backing off anything. Saying "hi jack" is not a crime or anything alarming anywhere. Saying it when no one named jack is around to random strangers is purposely attempting to cause a panic due to the similarities between the greeting and the crime. I have always said it was the results of the speech and not the speech itself. The only thing inconsistent here is your inability to comprehend what you are reading.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#490 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be the most obtuse and obstinate person I have ever encountered. I have never seen someone so married to such an absolutely wrong opinion in the face of such overwhelming information to the contrary. It is pathological and fascinating.
In other words, you got nothin'.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#491 Jan 18, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Was the defendant in that case found guilty?
Adif understanding

United States

#492 Jan 18, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I guess you have never read the constitution have you, no state is allowed to have a standing army or ship of war in times of peace. At the time of the creation and adoption of the US constitution, we were at peace. Go ahead and read it, it's still there, it wasn't written using disappearing ink or anything. It has nothing to do with a state militia and everything to with an individual right.

Perhaps you would be better off taking some time to learn a few things before you get back to trolling? You would look a lot less silly
Adif understanding

United States

#493 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we regulate the sale of alcohol?
Yes we do regulate the sale of alcohol and the constitution specifically provides for that.
Adif understanding

United States

#494 Jan 18, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The feds didn't set any minimum drinking age, they threatend states of withholding revenue for highway and other projects if they did not. There is no federal drinking age outside of military regulation. The reason they had to do it this way was because they had absolutely no authority to impose a minimum age on alcohol, it was a right specifically left to the states.

But fuck dude, I though you were supposed to be smart or something? The constitutional amendment has it right there for all to see. Again, you pretend nothing else in the constitution matters.
Adif understanding

United States

#495 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who said you were a 50 year old high school dropout. Are you saying you are a liar?
I'm saying a lot of things. Time's running out on this investment opportunity. I fear you will regret it if you do not take it seriously.
Adif understanding

United States

#496 Jan 18, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The justification for the limitation on constitutional rights really doesn't matter. The fact is that constitutional rights can be limited. Get it?
Are you the trained little liberal. What part of it is not illegal to say something do you not understand. Hell even recently, a court ruled that flipping a cop off and has long held insulting them is not illegal

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#497 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>A double barrel shotgun most certainly did exist. look up a double barrel blunderbus. As for the costs of the guns, it doesn't matter, they existed and the founders knew of them. A semi automatic can only fire one shot at a time too. You are failing miserable again. Just because you imagine it so does not make it so.
As for the agreement/disagreement. As I clearly laid the case in the other thread when I exposed you for a shallow idiot, nothing is all or nothing. I do not disagree with everything you say because I disagree with one thing you say. Get fucking real man. Seek some damn help or something. People are right on certain things then sometimes wrong on others. No grow up and pretend to be an adult.
Read and learn:

The early history of true shotguns begins in the 1800s, when people began to use them to hunt birds. During that time, the flintlock firing mechanism was the ignition system of choice and hence, it should be no surprise to know that early shotguns used them. The problem with such mechanisms is that there is a noticeable delay between pulling the trigger and the weapon actually discharging. The Rev. Alexander Forsythe, a Scottish clergyman and an avid hunter, noticed that the local birds would see the flame in the pan and immediately change direction and thereby escape. Hence, he set about inventing the percussion lock, which was the next big development in firearms technology and was also used by other firearms besides shotguns. The percussion lock was eventually replaced by modern cartridges, which we use to this day.

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2011/02/s...

Wanna quit being an anus and get back on topic?

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#498 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not backing off anything. Saying "hi jack" is not a crime or anything alarming anywhere. Saying it when no one named jack is around to random strangers is purposely attempting to cause a panic due to the similarities between the greeting and the crime. I have always said it was the results of the speech and not the speech itself. The only thing inconsistent here is your inability to comprehend what you are reading.
Don't look now but you're proving my point. Saying the words 'hi' and 'jack' together anywhere near an airport will get you in trouble. What if you, wait, you'll have to pretend here, had a friend and that friends name happened to be Jack.

With this hypothetical scenario, we're also pretending that you have enough money to use air travel and you've actually got somewhere to go. Okay, now you're about to board the plane and you see a guy that looks exactly like your friend and you shout the greeting "hi Jack" meaning no harm, you could even say "Hey Jack"

See what happens. You actually thought you were greeting your friend mistakenly.

Would you make your flight?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#499 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.
Cherry-picking data I see. Whether a gun related crime is fatal or not depends on whether a gun was fired AND how good the aim was. Total gun related crimes have fallen for the last 20 years...

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firea...

... DESPITE record new gun sales.

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
Merry Christmas! What's your favorite memory? 28 min Jesus The Birthda... 320
Ohio pharmacies see shortage in flu medication 48 min now hey 1
Transportation Insider: Outgoing COTA trustee p... 1 hr Reality Speaks 2
BLACK lives MATTER 1 hr Trash Collector 48
I found Mr Tea 2 hr Reality Speaks 11
3 days 'tilwill Christmas is your turkey thawed? 2 hr Duke for Mayor 10
Body in North Side parking lot is a homicide 3 hr now hey 2
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 6 hr Neutral Party 4,842
COPS lives MATTER 13 hr They cannot kill ... 48
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Monday Night Football Week 16: TV Schedule, Live Stream for Broncos vs. Bengals
NBC Sports 4:09 AM
Johnny Manziel doesn't leave much tape, but wants to be the guy in Cleveland
NFL 5:51 AM
Johnny Manziel: 'I want to be the guy' in Cleveland
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Preview, Prediction for Bengals vs. Broncos
Bleacher Report 8:00 AM
NFL Power Rankings Week 17: Predicting Post-Monday Night Football Standings