Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #13221
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Davendwarf View Post
    Here's hoping.
    I know Republicans sure as hell wouldn't vote for it, and I want to say that I remember hearing that a number of Democrats aren't likely to pass it because they don't want to piss of their constituency.

  2. #13222
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    I'm screen shoting this. If the measure is ever passed. You're comments will be my new signature.
    Protip: You don't need to screenshot it. It's already pasted in your reply.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  3. #13223
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    I'm screen shoting this. If the measure is ever passed. You're comments will be my new signature.
    Go ahead. Will be the third time somebody made a signature out of a quote from me.

  4. #13224
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    Protip: You don't need to screenshot it. It's already pasted in your reply.
    I don't feel like digging through weeks old posts to find this single post, a year from now.

  5. #13225
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    People assumed the same about ObamaCare. They're repeating the same thing about its chances of passing. Yet behold it did. What sort of witch craft is that. Oh that's right, we don't decide they do, and we can predict the outcome to say one of the outcome is absolute is a flat out lie.

    Perhaps you should re-read dangerous and unusual weapons. Then check to see if the court ever considered an assault weapon something that falls under that. The actual truth is it's very possible that they would ban the weapon, just as it's easily as possible they don't.
    Le sigh.

    Fused, I was trying to point out that it had already been pointed out that a complete firearms ban would require a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. The process for Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in both chambers of Congress (not just a simple majority), and then it would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    I think it's safe to say that it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

  6. #13226
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    I don't feel like digging through weeks old posts to find this single post, a year from now.
    I'm confused by how screenshotting is different in effort level from bookmarking.

  7. #13227
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Le sigh.

    Fused, I was trying to point out that it had already been pointed out that a complete firearms ban would require a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. The process for Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in both chambers of Congress (not just a simple majority), and then it would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    I think it's safe to say that it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
    We're not talking about banning all weapons. The 2nd amendment provides protection for hand guns which is legally defined as for self defense. However this is targeted at certain weapons, for certain reasons. One of which seem's to be the number one firearm for mass killers. I will not get into that debate. You are mis-interpreting what I said on what will pass.

    Furthermore the 2nd amendment does not protect against both dangerous and usual weapons that would put it just outside the scope to be protected. You see the supreme court has this cool thing, if federal and state law clash or for almost any reason you can have them hear the case and then they solely would decide if an assault weapons falls under self defense.

    If not, then is it both dangerous and unsual. If so. We have a ban to against these weapons and it would be upheld. You are massively missing my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I'm confused by how screenshotting is different in effort level from bookmarking.
    Easy, Personal preference.

  8. #13228
    Epic! Gemini Sunrise's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Caulking the river
    Posts
    1,602
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    The 2nd amendment provides protection for hand guns which is legally defined as for self defense. However this is targeted at certain weapons, for certain reasons. One of which seem's to be the number one firearm for mass killers. I will not get into that debate. You are mis-interpreting what I said on what will pass.
    Which just happens to be handguns. Heh.

  9. #13229
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini Sunrise View Post
    Which just happens to be handguns. Heh.
    We cannot focus on hand guns no matter what. Period. The court's already decided.

    However.

    They never decided on an assault weapon which isn't a hand gun..the measure would be an exception for hand gun owners but not assault weapons owner.

  10. #13230
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    We cannot focus on hand guns no matter what. Period. The court's already decided.

    However.

    They never decided on an assault weapon which isn't a hand gun..the measure would be an exception for hand gun owners but not assault weapons owner.
    You said number one. Assault weapons aren't number one. :P

  11. #13231
    Epic! Gemini Sunrise's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Caulking the river
    Posts
    1,602
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    We cannot focus on hand guns no matter what. Period. The court's already decided.

    However.

    They never decided on an assault weapon which isn't a hand gun..the measure would be an exception for hand gun owners but not assault weapons owner.
    Uhhhhhhhhh... The hell is this supposed to mean? I really don't understand what you are getting at here, and it hurts my eyes besides.

  12. #13232
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Willy View Post
    You said number one. Assault weapons aren't number one. :P
    that was quite clever of you. However I said mass murders, as in the most people in shortest amount of time. I know that hand guns are leading cause but it wouldn't hurt to take up the case on assault weapons.

  13. #13233
    Epic! Gemini Sunrise's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Caulking the river
    Posts
    1,602
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    that was quite clever of you. However I said mass murders, as in the most people in shortest amount of time. I know that hand guns are leading cause but it wouldn't hurt to take up the case on assault weapons.
    Yeah, it actually would.

    All this legislation is doing is the equivalent of taking out your dick and pissing on a forest fire. While it might make you feel good, it does next to nothing for the actual problem.

  14. #13234
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini Sunrise View Post
    Uhhhhhhhhh... The hell is this supposed to mean? I really don't understand what you are getting at here, and it hurts my eyes besides.
    Hand Guns cannot be banned.

    Assault weapons could MAYBE be banned.

    If it's defined by the court as both dangerous and usual. It's just that simple.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-08 at 12:35 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini Sunrise View Post
    Yeah, it actually would. All this legislation is doing is the equivalent of taking out your dick and pissing on a forest fire.
    In you're opinion.

  15. #13235
    Epic! Gemini Sunrise's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Caulking the river
    Posts
    1,602
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post

    In you're opinion.
    Nah, the facts say so. Handguns are the number one weapon used by mass killers. So, obviously, Washington will target something that is used in a scant few. Because that is just how they roll.

  16. #13236
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini Sunrise View Post
    Nah, the facts say so. Handguns are the number one weapon used by mass killers. So, obviously, Washington will target something that is used in a scant few. Because that is just how they roll.
    Again you mis-interpet my point.

    Even if hand guns was the top killer in the world. It does not matter they are protected no matter what.

    However an assault weapon is separate

    from a hand gun. It does not have equal protection.

  17. #13237
    Epic! Gemini Sunrise's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Caulking the river
    Posts
    1,602
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Even if hand guns was the top killer in the world. It does not matter they are protected no matter what.
    As long as it has less than 10 rounds, yes.

    Otherwise it's an assault weapon. (Brb, slitting wrists for saying those last 2 words)

  18. #13238
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini Sunrise View Post
    Nah, the facts say so. Handguns are the number one weapon used by mass killers. So, obviously, Washington will target something that is used in a scant few. Because that is just how they roll.
    I'm not debating if it's accurate. Let's say hand guns are number one killer.

    It doesn't matter because hand guns are protected. That's why they tried ban hand guns in the 1990's it was struck down by the courts. It's really not that hard to understand.

    Assault weapons are not protected or never been defined as anything. It's possible that it could be room to review the weapon and decide on a ban or not. And the best part is, it wouldn't infringe on you're rights.

  19. #13239
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    We're not talking about banning all weapons.
    Uh. Yes. We were.

    *rewind*

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    In the event that the CDC determines via study that gun ownership is detrimental to a progressive society, why wouldn't the liberal agenda shift to an outright ban on guns? That's where a constitutional amendment comes in, because that's what you would have to pass in order to ban guns.
    ...which you quoted when you posted...
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Because of the right to bear firearms which are protected under the 2nd amendment. ... They cannot write their own rules. They have to follow what's in place.
    ...to which I responded...
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    The rules for passing a Constitutional Amendment are in place. There's an almost non-existent chance that such an Amendment would pass in the current day, of course, but the method is there.
    So, yeah, we were talking about banning all weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    One of which seem's to be the number one firearm for mass killers. I will not get into that debate.
    Yeah. Because that argument holds no weight, as has been shown numerous times before. Still, since it's the right time for it, I'd like to point out how amusing it is that MotherJones corrected their blatantly incorrect data in that article.

    The original chart:


    vs. the updated chart:


    Hey, Fused, notice how only 20/143 firearms used in even this skewed selection of mass shootings would even be considered assault weapons under the more-strict-than-ever-before proposed assault weapons ban?

    Number one for mass killers? Hardly. Hell, revolvers and shotguns were used more often than assault weapons. Go fig.


    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    You are mis-interpreting what I said on what will pass.
    You responded to Eroginous who was talking about a complete ban. So you're the one misinterpreting the context of the current discussion, not I. You can't try to shame me just because I stayed on topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Furthermore the 2nd amendment does not protect against both dangerous and usual weapons that would put it just outside the scope to be protected.
    And you seem to think that it's a foregone conclusion that so-called "assault weapons" are dangerous and unusual. I don't know how you can call us unrealistic for assuming that the SCOTUS won't uphold that view when you seem so likewise certain that they will. Seems fairly hypocritical.
    Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2013-03-08 at 12:45 AM.

  20. #13240
    Because of the right to bear firearms which are protected under the 2nd amendment. It was in fact banned handguns. Then a Judge struck down part of the law because firearms that fit in you're hand are protected. It's defined as self defense. They cannot write their own rules. They have to follow what's in place.
    You're right, reading is difficult enough... who needs comprehension?

    Again, my post suggested a hypothetical situation... nothing more. IF the CDC produced a study that showed gun ownership IN GENERAL was detrimental to society, there is NO REASON WHY THE LIBERAL AGENDA WOULDN'T SHIFT TOWARDS BANNING ALL GUNS.

    For that to happen, you need a constitutional amendment.


    Do you understand yet? Should I quote it one more time so you can read it again? Here:

    IF the CDC produced a study that showed gun ownership IN GENERAL was detrimental to society, there is NO REASON WHY THE LIBERAL AGENDA WOULDN'T SHIFT TOWARDS BANNING ALL GUNS.
    Have a nice day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •