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

Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#500 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>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
Do you know what point you are trying to make?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#501 Jan 18, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever been in the south?
woof
Some parts (haven't been to Louisiana). What's your point? Do the police there confiscate legally acquired liquor from innocent peoples' homes whenever someone else drives drunk?

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#502 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>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
Read again, if they have the consent of Congress they sure can.

Also, the 3rd amendment sort of acknowledges the existence of a standing army.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy2...
Adif understanding

United States

#503 Jan 18, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Did you bother looking up the blunderbus. Its a shot gun by definition. I suggest you look it up before calling anyone names,.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#504 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Dillweed, what was the minimum age that the states were coerced into complying with?

The question, or problem rather, is not whether or not I'm smart, it's the fact that you're not and pretend you are.
Adif understanding

United States

#505 Jan 18, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Read again, if they have the consent of Congress they sure can.
Also, the 3rd amendment sort of acknowledges the existence of a standing army.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy2...
Great, you made it easier to show the fallacies you presented. I thought it was in the first section but it's the third and they can with congress' permission have a militia in times of peace. So does the second amendment nullify that? I mean if things are as you say, then the second amendment would mean congress couldn't restrict the state in this regard. But seeing how no other constitutional scholar has ever made the claim that it was nullified, then the supreme court was correct in it's finding that it is a personal right not a state's right to have a militia.

The third amendment has little to do with this because nothing outside of funding was prohibiting the federal government from having a standing army.
Adif understanding

United States

#506 Jan 18, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Dillweed, what was the minimum age that the states were coerced into complying with?
The question, or problem rather, is not whether or not I'm smart, it's the fact that you're not and pretend you are.
idiot, if the fed could make a minimum age for alcohol instead of it being reserved for the states, they wouldn't have needed to resort to extorting the states in order to get them to do it.

If I can't reach the can on the top shelf and ask you to get it for me, it doesn't all the sudden mean I could reach it on the top shelf. Even if I paid you or threatened to withhold payment from you, it wouldn't change that fact. Now grow up and think before you ramble.
Rob Johnson

AOL

#507 Jan 18, 2013
We all better consider the upcoming revolt before we argue NOT to ban the guns. Once the vast majority of the middle class are dumped off of their employer based insurance it could get nasty. Watching your family lose the greatest health care in the World and submit to the govt cheese variety ObamaCare with limited availabilty and drastically reduced quality wont' be easy for loving parents.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#508 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Did you bother looking up the blunderbus. Its a shot gun by definition. I suggest you look it up before calling anyone names,.
I did look up blunderbuss and you most certainly are a double one.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Blunderbus

Now, these were short range scatter guns, 99.9% of them were single barrel. The only existence of a double barrel blunderbuss long arm is at the Met Museum and that's from the 1800's.

Just because a French pirate may have had possession of a spinning barrel, double shot blunderbuss pistol, I doubt they were even considered by the founders.

Keep on stretching, your display of nescience is quite entertaining.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#509 Jan 18, 2013
I meant to say about the double barrel blunderbuss long arm is 'the only existence of one I can find with reasonable searching'

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#510 Jan 18, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Great, you made it easier to show the fallacies you presented. I thought it was in the first section but it's the third and they can with congress' permission have a militia in times of peace. So does the second amendment nullify that? I mean if things are as you say, then the second amendment would mean congress couldn't restrict the state in this regard. But seeing how no other constitutional scholar has ever made the claim that it was nullified, then the supreme court was correct in it's finding that it is a personal right not a state's right to have a militia.
The third amendment has little to do with this because nothing outside of funding was prohibiting the federal government from having a standing army.
Wow, pure asininity.

Where in the constitution is it assigned a 'personal right' to keep a standing army? An army of 1, I presume. The 2nd amendment is about the state having a militia and the 3rd assumes there will be a standing army, they just can't freeload off of the citizens.

You're a funny, funny guy.

Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#511 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Some parts (haven't been to Louisiana). What's your point? Do the police there confiscate legally acquired liquor from innocent peoples' homes whenever someone else drives drunk?
No. But there's really not much need for police to worry about alcohol in a lot of counties, as you simply cannot buy it anywhere.

woof

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#512 Jan 18, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
No. But there's really not much need for police to worry about alcohol in a lot of counties, as you simply cannot buy it anywhere.
woof
There are dry townships and cities in Ohio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_comm...

You simply drive to where it is, buy it, and bring it home.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#513 Jan 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You've linked me to nonfatal gun crime rates, rather than gun deaths. Or even the number of homicides by firearms.

I'll assume this is an accident, rather than cherry picking data!
Adif understanding

United States

#514 Jan 19, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
I did look up blunderbuss and you most certainly are a double one.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Blunderbus
Now, these were short range scatter guns, 99.9% of them were single barrel. The only existence of a double barrel blunderbuss long arm is at the Met Museum and that's from the 1800's.
Just because a French pirate may have had possession of a spinning barrel, double shot blunderbuss pistol, I doubt they were even considered by the founders.
Keep on stretching, your display of nescience is quite entertaining.
These were in service long before the founders were alive. They had knowledge of them. They are the same as a shotgun too. They just didn't use the percussion cap. But I can see that reality still escapes you. It's as if you will do anything in order to maintain whatever world view you have imagined.
Adif understanding

United States

#515 Jan 19, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, pure asininity.
Where in the constitution is it assigned a 'personal right' to keep a standing army? An army of 1, I presume. The 2nd amendment is about the state having a militia and the 3rd assumes there will be a standing army, they just can't freeload off of the citizens.
You're a funny, funny guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =nauLgZISozsXX
I never said the constitution allowed a personal right to a standing army. Please stick to what was said and not what you imagine was said.

I'm not sure why you are arguing something which the supreme court has already settled. They documented it pretty well in the DC gun case. Face it, you are wrong. Give it up and learn something.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#516 Jan 19, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>These were in service long before the founders were alive. They had knowledge of them. They are the same as a shotgun too. They just didn't use the percussion cap. But I can see that reality still escapes you. It's as if you will do anything in order to maintain whatever world view you have imagined.
A single shot scatter gun was not an effective weapon for hunting, much less for assault against another, unless they were within a few feet. A double barrel weapon of the same, still could only fire 1 shot at a time.

Oh, and read the last sentence in your first rambling paragraph, liar.

http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/TU7U0GMSQ...
Adif understanding

United States

#517 Jan 19, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
A single shot scatter gun was not an effective weapon for hunting, much less for assault against another, unless they were within a few feet. A double barrel weapon of the same, still could only fire 1 shot at a time.
Oh, and read the last sentence in your first rambling paragraph, liar.
http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/TU7U0GMSQ...
Sigh. I forgot I was dealing with a complete idiot. The feds could have a standing army, the state had the militia. You are claiming the second amendment is about the state militia and I said the 3rd amendment can pertain to the federal army.

What is so hard for you to understand there? Please, I don't mind dumbing it down some more but give me a freaking clue to where you are stuck.
Adif understanding

United States

#518 Jan 19, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
A single shot scatter gun was not an effective weapon for hunting, much less for assault against another, unless they were within a few feet. A double barrel weapon of the same, still could only fire 1 shot at a time.
Oh, and read the last sentence in your first rambling paragraph, liar.
http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/TU7U0GMSQ...
Oh, and it doesn't matter if it was effective at 2 feet or 200 feet, it is a fire arm and it was in production and use at the time. As for firing one shot at a time, all semi-automatics fire one shot at a time. What is your point- that you don't know anything about a gun?

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#519 Jan 19, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh. I forgot I was dealing with a complete idiot. The feds could have a standing army, the state had the militia. You are claiming the second amendment is about the state militia and I said the 3rd amendment can pertain to the federal army.
What is so hard for you to understand there? Please, I don't mind dumbing it down some more but give me a freaking clue to where you are stuck.
Yeah, you did forget you were dealing with you. The only idiot in this conversation.

Um, read the first 13 words in the 2nd amendment, it directly addresses a state run militia.

As far as the 3rd, you said it didn't apply, now that I've proven to you it does, you're trying to claim that's what you said all along.

You liars are funny. Can't stick to your guns when your crap is called, end up agreeing with me in principle yet you still are infantile tantrum mode.

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
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 1 hr Pale Rider 4,780
CIA Torture Report Comes Out Tomorrow 1 hr So What 325
chanukah hanukkah day 2 3 hr Free Pizza 4 U 5
Boko Haram kidnaps 172 MORE women and girls!!! 3 hr what_me_worry_ 2
Afghanistan's dirty little secret 3 hr what_me_worry_ 3
Topix gets rid of Canton and Twinsburg posters!!! 3 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 28
Another Epic Obama Accomplishment 3 hr They cannot kill ... 13
Public Flogging 6 hr Support 14
Merry Christmas! What's your favorite memory? 6 hr Dusty Rhodes 261
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 2:01 pm PST

NBC Sports 2:01PM
Johnny Manziel: 'Last week is in the past'
ESPN 2:46 PM
Browns OC backs Manziel: Not going in tank
NBC Sports 3:50 PM
Bengals heading back into withering spotlight - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 6:32 PM
Week 16 skill-position injury report — Thursday
Bleacher Report 7:22 PM
Denver Broncos vs. Cincinnati Bengals: Complete Week 16 Preview for Denver