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

WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#581 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun control started as a measure to keep people of color from obtaining and keeping constitutionally guaranteed arms. There was no other reason.
That's the truest statement on this thread:

BILL KEEP: REAGAN BACKED GUN CONTROL

Published Saturday, December 22, 2012
Bill Keep, Redding

REAGAN BACKED GUN CONTROL: Remember Huey Newton and the Black Panthers? Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at UCLA, in an Atlantic article (September, 2011) says they began the modern guns-rights movement. Their opponents? The NRA and, later, Ronald Reagan, both eager to suppress black radicals through strict gun control.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#582 Jan 20, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when folks tout their financial success on discussion boards as if anyone reading their tales actually really cares.
woof
Let alone believes.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#583 Jan 20, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
above is true with all you posts.
who cares.
Heck, you're still upset about not being able to run me over in the dark with your hubba bubba truck or kill me with knitting needles.

woof

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#584 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
The second amendment and subsequent SCOTUS rulings say the governments, local
As info, local jurisdictions in Ohio are forbidden from regulating the possession or transportation of firearms. They may, however, regulate their discharge, as well as places where they may be sold (zoning).

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#585 Jan 20, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
As info, local jurisdictions in Ohio are forbidden from regulating the possession or transportation of firearms. They may, however, regulate their discharge, as well as places where they may be sold (zoning).
semantics.
Adif understanding

United States

#586 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
More lunacy from you.
Let me put it in terms that you may understand. How would the 2nd amendment apply to a disintegration ray gun?
It's only lunacy if you can't keep track.

The same as it would apply to a hand gun or riffle. Of course I'm not sure what fictitious weapons have to do with a real world individual right. That is unless you think Star Trek and loony toons are documentaries.
Adif understanding

United States

#587 Jan 20, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
As info, local jurisdictions in Ohio are forbidden from regulating the possession or transportation of firearms. They may, however, regulate their discharge, as well as places where they may be sold (zoning).
So so far as to public safety that their inherent policing powers granted by the state of Ohio would allow for the direct protect of citizens. Do not forget that not only do local political subdivisions have to abide by the second amendment of the US constitution, they also are subjugated to article 1 section 1 (1.01) and article 1 section 4 (1.04) of the Ohio constitution.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#588 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously to pay attention to what you and your other brother Darryl has been posting.
What a zip, zero, nothing, nada, nil, niente you are.
By all means, please present evidence that members of my family don't live in Henderson. And then grow up.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#589 Jan 20, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It's only lunacy if you can't keep track.
The same as it would apply to a hand gun or riffle. Of course I'm not sure what fictitious weapons have to do with a real world individual right. That is unless you think Star Trek and loony toons are documentaries.
How many rifles were around at the drafting of either the constitution or the 2nd amendment?

Back then a repeating rifle was a fictitious, futuristic weapon, yet you say the framers envisioned that.

How does the 2nd amendment apply to what hadn't been invented yet?

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#590 Jan 20, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>By all means, please present evidence that members of my family don't live in Henderson. And then grow up.
Right on cue, Zero has to talk about another and what they have.

I don't give a flying eff where you might have relatives, nor who they could be. My bets are that either you don't have an immediate family or you grossly neglect them.

The math, which you are deficient in, proves it.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#591 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
How many rifles were around at the drafting of either the constitution or the 2nd amendment?
Back then a repeating rifle was a fictitious, futuristic weapon, yet you say the framers envisioned that.
How does the 2nd amendment apply to what hadn't been invented yet?
So...no inventions occurring post-Constitution are covered by the same.
Thanks for clearing that up, Kosmik.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#592 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
How many rifles were around at the drafting of either the constitution or the 2nd amendment?
Back then a repeating rifle was a fictitious, futuristic weapon, yet you say the framers envisioned that.
How does the 2nd amendment apply to what hadn't been invented yet?
How does the First Amendment apply to what hadn't been invented yet? Radio, television, the internet and hard core pornography were alien concepts to people of 225 years ago.
Adif understanding

United States

#593 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
How many rifles were around at the drafting of either the constitution or the 2nd amendment?
Back then a repeating rifle was a fictitious, futuristic weapon, yet you say the framers envisioned that.
How does the 2nd amendment apply to what hadn't been invented yet?
the clock work gun would be considered a repeating riffle in the same sense as a revolver and lever action riffle is a repeating gun.

And yes, the framers envisioned that people would have the arms necessary to provide for their own defense and the common defense of the state. This means arms created and used by potential enemies and people who would do harm to you even if they were not in existence at the time of the founding of the country. To suggest the founders of the country intended you to be centuries behind in technology from other countries is a retarded supposition not backed by anything surrounding the founding of the country or the creation of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#594 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Right on cue, Zero has to talk about another and what they have.
I don't give a flying eff where you might have relatives, nor who they could be. My bets are that either you don't have an immediate family or you grossly neglect them.
The math, which you are deficient in, proves it.
bb and Bob have told you over and over again, about your "math," Kommie. Don't want to believe it? Don't.
I watched you on here the other day from 11:00 Am until 2:00 Am the next morning and just for the hell of it, looked at your post count for that day. 73.
Just sayin'...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#595 Jan 20, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>the clock work gun would be considered a repeating riffle in the same sense as a revolver and lever action riffle is a repeating gun.
And yes, the framers envisioned that people would have the arms necessary to provide for their own defense and the common defense of the state. This means arms created and used by potential enemies and people who would do harm to you even if they were not in existence at the time of the founding of the country. To suggest the founders of the country intended you to be centuries behind in technology from other countries is a retarded supposition not backed by anything surrounding the founding of the country or the creation of the constitution and the bill of rights.
As well, the framers probably knew that you would need weaponry at least equal to what you were defending against. The police try to follow that same principle. Why shouldn't we?
Adif understanding

United States

#596 Jan 20, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
As well, the framers probably knew that you would need weaponry at least equal to what you were defending against. The police try to follow that same principle. Why shouldn't we?
Of course they thought that. And there is no reason we shouldn't follow that too.

The only possible restriction I would see as reasonable to entertain is if it is completely impractical to wield such weapon or to discharge it without harming another citizen like with a nuke.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#597 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
proof I'm not wealthy, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence:
"Ones who pass on excessively poor..."
yawn....
How is that used computer garage sale going?

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#598 Jan 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
So...no inventions occurring post-Constitution are covered by the same.
Thanks for clearing that up, Kosmik.
Then why can't I have rpg's and car to car missiles to get through the knuckleheads jamming the interstate?

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#599 Jan 20, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>How does the First Amendment apply to what hadn't been invented yet? Radio, television, the internet and hard core pornography were alien concepts to people of 225 years ago.
Hard core pornography has been around since man could etch drawings on rocks. There's plenty of it in the Old Testament alone.

Personally, any restriction of the first amendment, no matter what the medium on which it is conveyed, I oppose. With rare exception,'fire' in a crowded theater,'hijack' around an airport, a high pitched 'ahhhhlalalalalallalalahhhh' from anyone who looks middle eastern. Very narrow restrictions.

The disentegrator is slightly different, 1st amendment can only offend senses, no harm. Destroying someone molecularly, well what would one claim to have a need for?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#600 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why can't I have rpg's and car to car missiles to get through the knuckleheads jamming the interstate?
reductio ad absurdum

It would be your criminal use that would land you on the other side of the law.

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
Please help me find the love of my life 5 min UTrashy 123
A brief guide to the Clinton scandals... 14 min Pope Che Reagan C... 6
Is Drumpf Campaign Chief A Voter Fraud Felon? 28 min Artie Cocker 14
Major security breach - colonel compromised 1 hr Seriouslady 3
News Columbus man accused of sexually assaulting tod... 1 hr UTrashy 42
Beware of Judge Crawford (Feb '15) 1 hr Greg 8
Trump the Liar 3 hr Pale Rider 938
This Forum Does No Such Thing! 7 hr Duke for Mayor 23
Should the GOP cut its loses? 9 hr Seriouslady 912

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages