created by: American Patriot | Jan 12, 2013

Columbus, OH

364 votes

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

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No

Comments (Page 9)

Showing posts 161 - 180 of718
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the original poster said the partisan snipers would be the result of gun control. So in that case, who would they snipe?
The cowards have proven time and again they'd all get on Topix and gutter snipe the laws, that's about as close to being a sniper they'll ever get.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193
Jan 17, 2013
 
Posting at work wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts have never struck down a law restricting access to gun permit information, the Plain Dealer tried to do this in Ohio, and failed.
That's not true.

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resource...

And the "gag" order in place in New York as a result of that state's recently enacted gun legislation expires in 120 days, although registrants may "opt out" of their records being available as public records at any time.

woof
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#194
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WiseAmerican wrote:
Good ideal or not?
We have liability for car insurance and even for our homes if someone slips on ice on our driveway or sidewalk. Liability for gun owners; would it be unconstitutional?
Published: Fri January 11th, 2013
By: Isa-Lee Wolf
Category: Opinion and Editorial
COMMENTARY | A retired Navy commander, left unnamed in this innovative article from the Boston Globe , may have arrived at one of the best suggestions to date for our nationwide gun crisis. The commander thinks that gun owners should have to carry liability insurance for the firearms they own.
The more you think about it, the more brilliant it gets. Scot Lehigh, author of the editorial, goes through most of the reasons why. As with anything that incurs risk, the cost and ease of obtaining the insurance will rely on many factors, such as the mental health of the people in the household and the level of danger and scale of potential damage from the weapon. I'd add that having children in the household should also increase the cost of coverage.
There is a real question as to whether insurers would get on board. If guns really were as benign or risk-free as gun advocates like to claim, then there would be no problem in this regard. But, of course, they're not.
I have to wonder what is so ambiguous about the phrase "shall not be infringed". If guns are so bad, if so many people want them gone, change the constitution. It's not hard if the supposed support is there and the founded knew that from time to time it would need to happen which is why they built an amendment process into it.

I find it completely alarming that the same people who were up in arms over the suspension of habeas corpus (indefinite detention), warrant-less wiretaps and searches, Free speech zones at national political events, all of which is still happening today without outrage because of the current president, have no problem twisting and manipulating the constitution when it suits their political agenda. This tells me that for the left, liberals, and the likes, it never was about right and wrong, It was never about restrictions placed on the government ensuring your freedoms, it was all about politics and they could care less about anything that does not directly suit their agenda.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#195
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I have to wonder what is so ambiguous about the phrase "shall not be infringed". If guns are so bad, if so many people want them gone, change the constitution. It's not hard if the supposed support is there and the founded knew that from time to time it would need to happen which is why they built an amendment process into it.
I find it completely alarming that the same people who were up in arms over the suspension of habeas corpus (indefinite detention), warrant-less wiretaps and searches, Free speech zones at national political events, all of which is still happening today without outrage because of the current president, have no problem twisting and manipulating the constitution when it suits their political agenda. This tells me that for the left, liberals, and the likes, it never was about right and wrong, It was never about restrictions placed on the government ensuring your freedoms, it was all about politics and they could care less about anything that does not directly suit their agenda.
Exactly.

If Americans want to amend the Second, there is a constitutional process for such. I suggest the leftists begin the process if they have the balls. In fact, their credibility would improve if they were to actually attempt to amend....rather than brazenly ignore...the Second Amendment.

Oh, and as a reminder, the executive branch has no authority to unilaterally amend the Constitution.

The simple fact is that Barack Hussein Obama, and those likeminded, know full well that any such attempt would fail miserably. Instead, they issue restrictions at will, mangling the original intent, all the while missing the mark on their stated and forever elusive target: gun crime.

But, informed Americans know of a certainty that gun control has never been about crime control...and we know that our representatives understand that fact also.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I have to wonder what is so ambiguous about the phrase "shall not be infringed".
I shall attempt to explain this simply.

First, one must begin by asking "what is/are the breadth and scope of the individual right(s) enumerated in the 2nd Amendment?"

Logically, any individual conduct which is by its very nature or characteristics beyond the boundaries of the breadth and scope of the rights enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, would therefore be beyond the boundaries of protection from governmental interference.

Get it now?

woof

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#197
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I have to wonder what is so ambiguous about the phrase "shall not be infringed". If guns are so bad, if so many people want them gone, change the constitution. It's not hard if the supposed support is there and the founded knew that from time to time it would need to happen which is why they built an amendment process into it.
I find it completely alarming that the same people who were up in arms over the suspension of habeas corpus (indefinite detention), warrant-less wiretaps and searches, Free speech zones at national political events, all of which is still happening today without outrage because of the current president, have no problem twisting and manipulating the constitution when it suits their political agenda. This tells me that for the left, liberals, and the likes, it never was about right and wrong, It was never about restrictions placed on the government ensuring your freedoms, it was all about politics and they could care less about anything that does not directly suit their agenda.
And per usual, not an original thought in there.

Were you up in arms when the constitution got trashed under Bush?

I was and still am over Obama's continuation of illegal and unconstitutional practices. You're firmly from the school of rationalization, it's ok if your guy does it, it's an impeachable offense if the other guy continues it.

If you only had a brain...

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>

But, informed Americans know of a certainty that gun control has never been about crime control...and we know that our representatives understand that fact also.
Gun control started as a measure to keep people of color from obtaining and keeping constitutionally guaranteed arms. There was no other reason.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199
Jan 17, 2013
 
Secondly, if the conduct does indeed fall within the breadth and scope of the individual right(s) enumerated in the 2nd Amendment (owning a handgun for self defense, for instance), the questions then become:

1)"Does the state have a legitimate interest in acting to restrict the conduct in some manner, and 2) Does the method of restriction employed by the state improperly infringe upon, or properly protect an individual's Constitutional rights while simultaneously serving the state's legitimate interests (registration of handguns, for instance)?

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#200
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.
Well, that assertion would confirm that gun control sure as hell isn't about guns, now, wouldn't it?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
Secondly, if the conduct does indeed fall within the breadth and scope of the individual right(s) enumerated in the 2nd Amendment (owning a handgun for self defense, for instance), the questions then become:
1)"Does the state have a legitimate interest in acting to restrict the conduct in some manner, and 2) Does the method of restriction employed by the state improperly infringe upon, or properly protect an individual's Constitutional rights while simultaneously serving the state's legitimate interests (registration of handguns, for instance)?
woof
"shall not be infringed" = shall not be RESTRICTED

The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government.
If US citizens believe the government should have a right to infringe, then by all means...begin the amendment process.

Reminder: A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50).

Good luck.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that assertion would confirm that gun control sure as hell isn't about guns, now, wouldn't it?
No, I've never supported gun control either. I support people control and there are many people who legally have weapons that have neither the mental or emotional capability to properly use.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
...I support people control....
As you've been told time and again...you're no libertarian.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204
Jan 17, 2013
 
WiseAmerican wrote:
Good ideal or not?
We have liability for car insurance and even for our homes if someone slips on ice on our driveway or sidewalk. Liability for gun owners; would it be unconstitutional?
My homeowners insurance covers firearm accidents.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#205
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
As you've been told time and again...you're no libertarian.
People who don't know what something is can hardly intelligently speak of what they're ignorant of.

Gee, I consistently favor personal liberty, the basis of the Libertarian Party, yet I can't be one. You and Zero, on the other hand consistently vote for liberal, fascist Republicans and you claim you're not one.

The Libertarians get checks and votes from me. What does the non-existent Conservative Party get from you?
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
And per usual, not an original thought in there.
Were you up in arms when the constitution got trashed under Bush?
I was and still am over Obama's continuation of illegal and unconstitutional practices. You're firmly from the school of rationalization, it's ok if your guy does it, it's an impeachable offense if the other guy continues it.
If you only had a brain...
Yes, I was up in arms when the constitution got trashed by Bush and unlike most who were, I'm still up in arms about it now that Obama is president and those same violations and more are still happening and exist under his watch. In fact, without even getting into the gun control issues, Obama has expanded Bush's trashing and even went as far as exerting the right to up and kill (assassinate) US citizens by declaring them enemy combatants and pushing the button for a drone strike.

You are right, I am in the school of rationalization. But I'm an absolute rationalist if you must label. Rationalization needs to exist else bad guy tries to kill good guy but dies and good guy lives would result in good guy getting the full wrath of the law. But while you can rationalize the enforcement of laws, laws in the US can only be valid if they are consistent with the powers and restrictions of the Constitution that empowers government to create such laws. You can have a defense to a violation of the law (often the defense of necessity), you cannot have a defense to a violation of the constitution.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#207
Jan 17, 2013
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
People who don't know what something is can hardly intelligently speak of what they're ignorant of.
Gee, I consistently favor personal liberty, the basis of the Libertarian Party, yet I can't be one. You and Zero, on the other hand consistently vote for liberal, fascist Republicans and you claim you're not one.
The Libertarians get checks and votes from me. What does the non-existent Conservative Party get from you?
Send them a check today, if it will improve your nasty mood.
Won't get anyone elected or change a damned thing...but this board can't take much more of your bitching and moaning.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#208
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
Secondly, if the conduct does indeed fall within the breadth and scope of the individual right(s) enumerated in the 2nd Amendment (owning a handgun for self defense, for instance), the questions then become:
1)"Does the state have a legitimate interest in acting to restrict the conduct in some manner, and 2) Does the method of restriction employed by the state improperly infringe upon, or properly protect an individual's Constitutional rights while simultaneously serving the state's legitimate interests (registration of handguns, for instance)?
woof
Hogwash. It says so right in the amendment, the right of "the people" to keep and bear "arms", shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of some people, the right of the army, the right of martians, the right of deer or horses, it says people. It does not say to keep and hunt, to keep and do sporting events, to keep and target practice, it that to use or bear arms. It does not say to bear muskets or muzzle loaders, it does not say to keep or bear knives or swords, it does not say to keep and bear bicycles, it says arms and when predicated with the necessity of a well regulated militia being necessary to remain FREE, we know it is talking about any arms in military use.

And this has already been hashed out with the DC gun ban. Please don't be silly.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#209
Jan 17, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
"shall not be infringed" = shall not be RESTRICTED
The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government.
If US citizens believe the government should have a right to infringe, then by all means...begin the amendment process.
Reminder: A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50).
Good luck.
"Infringe" certainly does not have the same meaning as "reasonably restrict".

As I've told you before...your knowledge of Constitutional Law is seriously lacking, and that causes you to arrive at seriously mistaken conclusions.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#210
Jan 17, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Hogwash. It says so right in the amendment, the right of "the people" to keep and bear "arms", shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of some people, the right of the army, the right of martians, the right of deer or horses, it says people. It does not say to keep and hunt, to keep and do sporting events, to keep and target practice, it that to use or bear arms. It does not say to bear muskets or muzzle loaders, it does not say to keep or bear knives or swords, it does not say to keep and bear bicycles, it says arms and when predicated with the necessity of a well regulated militia being necessary to remain FREE, we know it is talking about any arms in military use.
And this has already been hashed out with the DC gun ban. Please don't be silly.
No, it has not been "hashed out" through Heller.

The holding of Heller is specific to the facts presented in that case.

Read it again, if you even have. Then read the DC circuit's opinion on remand from the Supreme Court.

You're mistaken.

woof

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#211
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
People who don't know what something is can hardly intelligently speak of what they're ignorant of.
Gee, I consistently favor personal liberty
"People control" and "personal liberty" are contradictory.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 161 - 180 of718
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

31 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 13 min Anonymous of Indy 28,552
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 38 min Seriouslady 2,723
Will Obama Resign From Office? 42 min Go Blue Forever 579
When will Obama be Arrested???? 1 hr Pope Che Reagan Christ I 42
muslim brotherhood authorizes 'anal jihad' 1 hr Pope Che Reagan Christ I 5
'Annie's Law' pushed to prevent DUIs 2 hr d pantz 6
Twilight Ride 2 hr yeah baby yeah 2
•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••