Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 22, 2014, 06:28:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hey Strawman, do you agree with a ban on semi automatic rifles?  (Read 550 times)
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24842



View Profile
« on: January 05, 2013, 05:38:50 PM »

Specifically the AR-15?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2013, 05:44:45 PM »

I think all "arms" should be banned except muskets

My sole reason for this is for my personal entertainment at watching american gun nuts have a meltdown

I think that would be fun to watch

I definitely don't agree with piece of shit Repubs like Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford

Quote
Plea From 3 Ex-Presidents

The letter from three former presidents to the House:

May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban/2
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24842



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2013, 05:48:43 PM »

LOL so you honestly feel that all guns except muskets should be banned?

I dont know why you brought up reagan, ford and carter into this but if it makes you feel better about your position I guess, whatever...

Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2013, 05:53:27 PM »

LOL so you honestly feel that all guns except muskets should be banned?

I dont know why you brought up reagan, ford and carter into this but if it makes you feel better about your position I guess, whatever...

of course

can't you feel the sincerity in my post
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24842



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2013, 06:06:22 PM »

LOL well then quit being sarcastic and actually tell us all how you feel about this.

I understand you dont want to pin yourself down b/c it will probably come back to bite you in the ass but Im geniunely curious where you stand on this.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2013, 06:09:52 PM »

LOL well then quit being sarcastic and actually tell us all how you feel about this.

I understand you dont want to pin yourself down b/c it will probably come back to bite you in the ass but Im geniunely curious where you stand on this.

I am totally fine with banning all arms except muskets

Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24842



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2013, 06:17:05 PM »

any particular reasoning why you feel muskets are ok but not other forms of fire arms?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2013, 06:20:44 PM »

any particular reasoning why you feel muskets are ok but not other forms of fire arms?

that's all they had when The Constitution was written so that's the only arm we can all agree that the founders were in favor of allowing citizens to have (if you have some other knowledge of other arms I will add those to my approved list)

everything else is open to debate
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15794


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2013, 06:24:28 PM »

that's all they had when The Constitution was written so that's the only arm we can all agree that the founders were in favor of allowing citizens to have (if you have some other knowledge of other arms I will add those to my approved list)

everything else is open to debate

Did you take a poll of the signers of the constitution to determine if they meant muskets only?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2013, 06:28:20 PM »

Did you take a poll of the signers of the constitution to determine if they meant muskets only?

like I said

that's all they had when The Constitution was written so that's the only arm we can all agree that the founders were in favor of allowing citizens to have (if you have some other knowledge of other arms I will add those to my approved list)

everything else is open to debate
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15794


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2013, 06:29:05 PM »

like I said


Like I asked... Did you take a poll?

Apparently that is your litmus test these days.

If you did not take a poll, you have no idea if the signers of the constitution cared about more advanced arms or had any idea as to the potential ramifications of their wording.

I personally put them in a much higher regard and believe they understood it to mean that whatever the government had, would need to have equal firepower to defend against.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2013, 06:31:51 PM »

Like I asked... Did you take a poll?

Apparently that is your litmus test these days.



it's not my litmus test

you made a claim in another thread based on the entire country and I just asked you how you arrived at that conclusion

I am not an expert in Colonial era firearms so if you'd like to tell me what types of firearms were available at that time I said I would add them to my approved list
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15794


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2013, 06:33:32 PM »

it's not my litmus test

you made a claim in another thread based on the entire country and I just asked you how you arrived at that conclusion

I am not an expert in Colonial era firearms so if you'd like to tell me what types of firearms were available at that time I said I would add them to my approved list

Again, you are assuming that the founding father did not understand what they were writing.

That's a very poor assumption on your part.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24842



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2013, 06:34:13 PM »

why are you assuming they were limiting their definition to only those arms that were available at the time?

as many of them were inventors they knew things would change...
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2013, 06:41:53 PM »

Again, you are assuming that the founding father did not understand what they were writing.

That's a very poor assumption on your part.

when did I say that

I said very simply that I would allow only those arms (I said muskets but if there are other arms you can include those too) that were available at the time The Constitution was written

Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15794


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2013, 06:43:58 PM »

when did I say that

I said very simply that I would allow only those arms (I said muskets but if there are other arms you can include those too) that were available at the time The Constitution was written



Your statements are making that a clear implication... You do not have to "say" it.

You are implying that because the founding fathers did not have an understanding of what is to come, that they made statements that were vague and they did not know what the implication of that would be.

My implication is that they made it vague specifically because they DID understand that they could not see the future and to be complete for the future, they included ALL arms so that the government could not overpower the people in the future.

You don't have to SAY a damn thing to imply what you are.

Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2013, 06:48:10 PM »

Your statements are making that a clear implication... You do not have to "say" it.

You are implying that because the founding fathers did not have an understanding of what is to come, that they made statements that were vague and they did not know what the implication of that would be.

My implication is that they made it vague specifically because they DID understand that they could not see the future and to be complete for the future, they included ALL arms so that the government could not overpower the people in the future.

You don't have to SAY a damn thing to imply what you are.



OK - if you have some information that supports your belief (I'm not even sure if this is your belief or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing) that the Founder were aware of the future of "arms" and intended to include that in their definition then I will consider it

Let's see it
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15794


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2013, 06:49:38 PM »

OK - if you have some information that supports your belief (I'm not even sure if this is your belief or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing) that the Founder were aware of the future of "arms" and intended to include that in their definition then I will consider it

Let's see it

It's called the 2nd amendment and how it's worded... I don't need anything else

You are the one saying they didn't mean to leave the door open... Their words say otherwise.

It's up to you, to prove me wrong... not the other way around.

My proof is the US Constitution.

Whatta' you got?
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24842



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2013, 06:52:56 PM »

^^^

LOL I like that
Report to moderator   Logged
Irongrip400
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 8083


Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2013, 06:56:46 PM »

Is straw man a TA gimmick just fucking with people?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2013, 06:57:41 PM »

Your statements are making that a clear implication... You do not have to "say" it.

You are implying that because the founding fathers did not have an understanding of what is to come, that they made statements that were vague and they did not know what the implication of that would be.

My implication is that they made it vague specifically because they DID understand that they could not see the future and to be complete for the future, they included ALL arms so that the government could not overpower the people in the future.

You don't have to SAY a damn thing to imply what you are.



I never said or implied they made vague statements

I said that I would only allow arms that existed at the time they wrote the document

If you have some proof (anything) that suggests they imagined and intended to include future arms then I'm willing to look at it

Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2013, 06:59:33 PM »

It's called the 2nd amendment and how it's worded... I don't need anything else

You are the one saying they didn't mean to leave the door open... Their words say otherwise.

It's up to you, to prove me wrong... not the other way around.

My proof is the US Constitution.

Whatta' you got?

it's worded with "arms"

If you have any proof that they intended to include anything more than what was available to them at the time then I'll be glad to look at it

If not, then I've given you the basis for my answer to Tony's question
Report to moderator   Logged
WOOO
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15890


Mr. Unpopular


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2013, 07:00:17 PM »

Is straw man a TA gimmick just fucking with people?

could be
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24842



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2013, 07:01:16 PM »

I never said or implied they made vague statements

I said that I would only allow arms that existed at the time they wrote the document

If you have some proof (anything) that suggests they imagined and intended to include future arms then I'm willing to look at it


The reason youre saying that you would only allow arms that existed at the time is b/c you assume thats what the founding fathers were referring to.

there doesnt need to be any proof to say future arms b/c their wording allows for it. Those that want to limit the arms to muskets need to provide proof to their argument based on their stance that its what the founding fathers meant.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24799


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2013, 07:02:05 PM »

Is straw man a TA gimmick just fucking with people?

worst insult ever

congratulations
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!