Assult rifle ban to expire!!

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Prove to me that you need your car to work. You can do just fine with a bicycle. I'll be over tomorrow to take your car away from you.

The "you don't need it" is quite possibly the most un-American argument of them all.

Actually it wont work. Again, my question was prove to me you actually need a assualt rifle for home defense. A car is made for transporation and isnt made to kill human beings and has a far greater use than a weapon of death.

It's a specious argument, as I am under absolutely no obligation to prove anything to you in the first place.

 

[Mockery]

I can't wait until we start banning sports cars too.

Those are mechanical death traps....Nobody actually needs to have a car that can go over 100 mph in order to get to work. Nobody needs to have a car that gets inadequate gas mileage either. SUV?s should be banned because of their excessive size. Ever see what happens when those things collides with a compact car? It?s completely unacceptable and preventable?.These things are just frivolous spoils of America?s society that need to be done away with.

Yes, I can't wait to be one of the first people to force others to live by my guideline of living. This just shows how outstanding I am.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Are you in first grade? maybe if i type in caps you can read. The point was that there are REGULATIONS ON FREE SPEECH, which is a CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED RIGHT. Thus, THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR THERE TO BE REGULATIONS ON CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED RIGHTS, such as the RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. The fire issue, or whatever the hell you want to call it, put a regulation on a constitutionally granted right.

Finally, GET A BRAIN. I said NOTHING about constitutionality. I wasn't attacking any argument, so there is NO STRAWMAN. I am making my OWN argument.

Quite hostile. Indicative of one on the losing end of an argument.

You stated that there is a limit on free speech, but you're wrong. There's no limit on freedom of speech, but depending on the outcome of that speech, one does have to bear the responsibility of their words.

Likewise, there's a constitutional right to bear arms that cannot be infringed. However, should one misuse their firearms and another person is injured or killed within the consitutionally protected rights set out (just like misusing the freedom of speech to yell "Fire!") then the person who pulled the trigger has to pay the consequences set out by law.

The constitution grants the right to yell "Fire!" if there is a fire and people need to evacuate a building or risk burning alive. The constitution also grants the right to own a gun. If either of those rights is abused, then punishment can be applied.

Just saying that free speech can be abridged isn't correct. The issue isn't free speech, it's breaking other laws through misuse of constitional rights.

Reread what you wrote, and look up limit in a dictionary "To confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds.". The idea that you cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre is a limitation of the freedom to speak. Nothing you say can make this otherwise. The freedom of speech is limited to cases when it does not clearly and distinctly harm the safety of others.

Let's look at the word - unlimited. This means something that is without bounds. Were the freedom of speech to be unlimited, you could use it anywhere or anytime. But that clearly is not the case.

Now, the constitution grants the right to bear arms. To limit this right in the interest of public safety would be to apply bounds as to who can bear arms, and what arms can be had. This is exactly the same as the limit on free speech.

I don't know how old you are, but if you think the freedom of speech is unlimited, you are living in a different world.

Triumph -

Let me just add to triumph, who seems to endlessly be using phrases like "un-American" and so on. Asking whether the ends justify the means is just asking why we need a ban on assault weapons. I've made a clear argument why, but you seem to ignore it and hide behind this much, much too abused phrase. The end is public and police safety. The means is taking away the right of the public to own assault weapons. You know these two already. The important part of "do the ends justify the means" is really not the ends or the means. It's the "justify" part. And I have made an argument already with a distinct justification, but you have ignored it and hung yourself up on the ends and the means.