Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
You mean compared with now? I'd be surprised if you could find 10 people online who agree with the founders that gun ownership, that is, ownership of ANY kind of gun, is a fundamental and absolute right of every person on earth.
Really? You think that for the past 200+ years you've had the right to own fully automatic weapons? Umm... I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but....
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Even someone as dense as you Plawler know that it was only recent history where the law makers started restricting the types of guns that could be owned.
It was only in recent history that readily available fully automatic weapons existed. Say, how about a suitcase nuclear weapon. Do you have a right to own one of those, too? After all, the constitution doesn't say what kind of "arms." You wouldn't want to be accused of being an activist liberal, would you?
[2 points]3 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 3 years ago by plawler
Please tell me what was not "cogent" about my comment. Saying you have the absolute right to own ANY type of "gun" creates a huge slippery slope. What about particle beam weapons? What about spent nuclear fuel weapons?
I am a liberal, and I believe in the 2nd amendment, I realize Obama doesn't have the stance on this issue that I believe is correct but I find that the only black mark against him. I will be dammed if I will vote against everything I believe is right--by voting for McCain-- just for that single issue of gun control. I kept my guns through the Clinton era and he was anti-gun, I will still have them when the Obama era is completed.
Also, again I don’t trust YOUR crystal ball commonsense. Your argument about Obama is baseless unless you can prove that the President and Congress can amend the Constitution through legislation alone which would take away my 2nd amendment rights. You have failed to do that here. Besides, Obama has plainly stated he believes the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to mean “individuals” right to bear arms. You guys put forth this same tired argument when Clinton was elected both times. As far as I can tell the government didn’t bash any doors down and take guns away from law abiding citizens. Do you personally know anyone who lost their gun rights when there was a Democratic controlled Congress and a Democratic President????Didn’t think so.
1) Obama said he supported the Washington DC's affective total gun ban. Said it was wrong AFTER the supreme court decision, but still supported restrictions.
2) Obama supports Chicago's handgun ban.
3) Obama vote yes for a bill that would give the Attorney General the power to ban virtually all common hunting ammo.
4) Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which funds groups with the stated goal of enacting gun bans.
5) Obama has been endorsed by the Brady Group, the nation's premier gun banning group.
6) Obama said he would bring back the Clinton gun ban.
7) Obama said he would appoint supreme court justices like those who voted to uphold the DC gun ban.
He has said that he believes the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but he hasn't said what that means to him. And it is ALWAYS only in the context of hunting. Maybe he supports my right to own and hunt with a mussel loading rifle, after jumping through extensive government hoops and regulations. May not.
It is just a shame that liberals, who claim to support liberty, freedoms, and individual rights, are so eager to take this right away.
[1 point]3 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 3 years ago by dr1024
As a general rule of thumb, yes. As a party platform, yes. However there are some Democrats who are strong gun-rights supporters, and some Republicans who are strongly anti-gun-rights.
Oh... I get it. If you're wrong, just accuse the other person of baiting you, and call for stopping the argument. Fact. U.S. law does NOT permit you to own fully automatic weapons. Sorry, it's a fact.
I'm well aware of what both the federal and my state laws have to say about firearms ownerships and restrictions.
I'm also well aware of the restriction on fully automatic (vs. semi-automatic) firearms, sound suppression devices, tactical lights, laser sights, and methods of storage and carry.
Your point is irrelevant.
Given your (blatantly repeated) comment:
"Really? You think that you have a fundamental and absolute right to own a Thompson sub-machine gun? How about an Uzi?"
My answer was "Yes."
So, no, you don't get it. I'm not wrong. What federal law restricts is not relevant to the question, therefore, yes, you are baiting.
If you do not have the "right" by law, then how can you argue that it is a "fundamental and absolute" right? How can there be an "absolute" right that you do not have?
Incorrect. From your evidence, "The act also prohibited further registry of most automatic firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of machine guns manufactured after it took effect." So no Uzis. Sorry.
Not only do I have this right but so does every other human being on earth!
What part of "all men are created equal..." don't you understand? I have a fundamental right to own any weapon I can afford to buy, even if I'm a felon. Government gets its rights from the people, not the other way around.
No part. But what does all men are created equal have to do with felons owning automatic weapons? I will happily stipulate that felons were "created" equal, but due to their anti-social actions they have forfeited their equality. So neither you, nor felons have the "absolute right" to own automatic weapons. Yes, government gets its rights from the people, because people form societies to create laws by which they will be governed. Without the social contract, live would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" --Thomas Hobbes.
OK, the US Constitution, the law set forth by the people, to govern the management company has no restrictions therein on gun ownership. In fact, it mentions a peoples' RIGHT to keep and carry [any] arms. A felon pays a debt. The debt is determined by the courts, but losing any fundamental rights is never part of that debt. Government cannot take away that with which it does not give.
You need to brush up on your Hobbes. He agrees with me, not with you.
[1 point]3 years ago by uhclemReplyEdited 3 years ago by uhclem
If a dingy dimwit like Palin becomes VP to a 72 year old and then is maybe thrust into the Presidency the American people will have an endless list of new concerns and worries! The false notion Dems will impose major new controls on guns will pale as a concern, compared to the utter and complete disaster of a President Palin!
EVERY respect? You mean she plays basketball better? You mean because she can sorta see Russia with binoculars, she understands what its like to be in foreign country better than someone who has lived in one? EVERY respect??!!
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
She has run a small city as Mayor, she has run a large state as a Governor, she is Commander of the only National Guard unit that is constantly on active duty and, as such, receives frequent updates by this country's military personnel, and she has a very high security clearance making her privy to information that Barack doesn't have access to.
And would you not then agree that in an era where we are extremely concerned about Islamic terrorism being knowledeable [sic] about Muslim countries is much more valuable than being able to play the flute or field dress a moose?
And, would you not agree that being able to play a flute or field dress a moose does not disqualify a person from that office?
A person who had been a Muslim would, of course, be more knowlegeable, but that doesn't mean it qualifies him for the office. People are not given the option to leave the Muslim faith, are they? Doesn't that bring the death penalty?
Other than organizing minority voter registration drives, what experience does Osama bring to the office?
[0 points]3 years ago by MikeHendReplyEdited 3 years ago by MikeHend
But your contention wasn't that she is "less disqualified." Your contention was that she is more qualified in EVERY respect. Again, I must ask. Do you understand the meaning of the word, EVERY?
Your parsing of the word "every" is to what end? I didn't believe it was necessary to go into minute detail of my meaning of the word "every". Have you no better retort?
I'm not "parsing" the word every. I'm asking you if you know what the word every means? Obviously you do not, because if I can point out even one (no matter how minute... which foreign policy is not) instance where she is not more qualified, then your pronouncement that she is more qualified "in every respect" is just plain false. You are making demonstrably false statements. I need no better retort. ;o)
He maybe went to the Sarah Palin school of debating - if you can't change the subject just claim the libs are parsing words and being anti-American, etc.
Since Obama will not rule my country "our" rights to own weapons will not be restricted. But I certainly hope he will rstrict "your" rights to own weapons. So many innocent people die because of accidents with privately owned weapons.
I know this is hard for you to grasp, Mike, but every red white and blue flag in the world is not an American Flag. pollewop is in the Netherlands where gun ownership IS restricted; so no, he is not being two faced.
Wow... you moderated my comment down. You abject coward!
Yes, he said his rights would not be further restricted, but yours should be. Is it his fault you can't look at the little flag and figure out that he's in the Netherlands?
[2 points]3 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 3 years ago by plawler
United States
You mean compared with now? I'd be surprised if you could find 10 people online who agree with the founders that gun ownership, that is, ownership of ANY kind of gun, is a fundamental and absolute right of every person on earth.
I'm one.
Need 9 more. She-oot, I know 9 more people that think that. If anyone really needs those 10 names, I have them.
Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyReally? You think that you have a fundamental and absolute right to own an Uzi?
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyReally? You think that you have a fundamental and absolute right to own a Thompson sub-machine gun?
Really? You think that you have a fundamental and absolute right to own a Thompson sub-machine gun? How about an Uzi?
Certainly.
Surprise, surprise! You don't. Neither in the Constitution, nor in US statue law.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I realize that numbskull, thanks to activist liberal judges that like to make law,not interpret it.
You mean like those activist liberal judges who voted to allow people's homes to be taken from them by eminent domain and given to private developers?
Yes.
Surprise, surprise! You don't. Neither in the Constitution, nor in US statue law.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
This is a pointless fruitless engagement. You're already trying to bait me.
You have your opinion. I have mine.
So far, for the past 200+ years, I've been right.
There's no point in dragging this out.
Where did you get your username?
The username bucket. :)
Seriously, I drew it out of a hat.
Ok, seriously. I don't remember where I first started using it. I've been using it online for over 10 years.
Really? You think that for the past 200+ years you've had the right to own fully automatic weapons? Umm... I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but....
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Even someone as dense as you Plawler know that it was only recent history where the law makers started restricting the types of guns that could be owned.
It was only in recent history that readily available fully automatic weapons existed. Say, how about a suitcase nuclear weapon. Do you have a right to own one of those, too? After all, the constitution doesn't say what kind of "arms." You wouldn't want to be accused of being an activist liberal, would you?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
When you come down from that self-induced high, give us a cogent comment.
Please tell me what was not "cogent" about my comment. Saying you have the absolute right to own ANY type of "gun" creates a huge slippery slope. What about particle beam weapons? What about spent nuclear fuel weapons?
I'm number two, my wife number three, my two sons are four and five, my daughter is number six, by brother is numbr seven, son-in-law is number eight.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI am a liberal, and I believe in the 2nd amendment, I realize Obama doesn't have the stance on this issue that I believe is correct but I find that the only black mark against him. I will be dammed if I will vote against everything I believe is right--by voting for McCain-- just for that single issue of gun control. I kept my guns through the Clinton era and he was anti-gun, I will still have them when the Obama era is completed.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAlso, again I don’t trust YOUR crystal ball commonsense. Your argument about Obama is baseless unless you can prove that the President and Congress can amend the Constitution through legislation alone which would take away my 2nd amendment rights. You have failed to do that here. Besides, Obama has plainly stated he believes the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to mean “individuals” right to bear arms. You guys put forth this same tired argument when Clinton was elected both times. As far as I can tell the government didn’t bash any doors down and take guns away from law abiding citizens. Do you personally know anyone who lost their gun rights when there was a Democratic controlled Congress and a Democratic President????Didn’t think so.
1) Obama said he supported the Washington DC's affective total gun ban. Said it was wrong AFTER the supreme court decision, but still supported restrictions.
2) Obama supports Chicago's handgun ban.
3) Obama vote yes for a bill that would give the Attorney General the power to ban virtually all common hunting ammo.
4) Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which funds groups with the stated goal of enacting gun bans.
5) Obama has been endorsed by the Brady Group, the nation's premier gun banning group.
6) Obama said he would bring back the Clinton gun ban.
7) Obama said he would appoint supreme court justices like those who voted to uphold the DC gun ban.
He has said that he believes the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but he hasn't said what that means to him. And it is ALWAYS only in the context of hunting. Maybe he supports my right to own and hunt with a mussel loading rifle, after jumping through extensive government hoops and regulations. May not.
It is just a shame that liberals, who claim to support liberty, freedoms, and individual rights, are so eager to take this right away.
I agree with the last paragraph completely, and I also just don't understand why that is a sticking point with my party.
Me too.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAgreed To McCain Gun Show Ban 03/02/2004
Passed McCain's Incumbent Protection 04/02/2001
I see what you mean.. Good site--thanks.
As a general rule of thumb, yes. As a party platform, yes. However there are some Democrats who are strong gun-rights supporters, and some Republicans who are strongly anti-gun-rights.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyHow about fully automatic weapons? Do you think you have a constitutional right to have those puppies sitting in your closet?
Please stop.
You're being antagonistic and you're trying to bait someone into a lengthy argument in which no parties will concede.
What's the point? Does it make you feel better?
Oh... I get it. If you're wrong, just accuse the other person of baiting you, and call for stopping the argument. Fact. U.S. law does NOT permit you to own fully automatic weapons. Sorry, it's a fact.
I'm well aware of what both the federal and my state laws have to say about firearms ownerships and restrictions.
I'm also well aware of the restriction on fully automatic (vs. semi-automatic) firearms, sound suppression devices, tactical lights, laser sights, and methods of storage and carry.
Your point is irrelevant.
Given your (blatantly repeated) comment:
"Really? You think that you have a fundamental and absolute right to own a Thompson sub-machine gun? How about an Uzi?"
My answer was "Yes."
So, no, you don't get it. I'm not wrong. What federal law restricts is not relevant to the question, therefore, yes, you are baiting.
If you do not have the "right" by law, then how can you argue that it is a "fundamental and absolute" right? How can there be an "absolute" right that you do not have?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyIncorrect. From your evidence, "The act also prohibited further registry of most automatic firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of machine guns manufactured after it took effect." So no Uzis. Sorry.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyHope you don't have to go through that ordeal BEC.
OMG! You're not calling ME a liberal, are you??
Them's fightin' words!
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYeah right. What about for convicted felons? There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids ex-cons from owning machine guns.
That ban doesn't seem to have stopped the felons from having machine guns and if they have them, I should have them.
Really? You think that you have a fundamental and absolute right to own a Thompson sub-machine gun?
Not only do I have this right but so does every other human being on earth!
What part of "all men are created equal..." don't you understand? I have a fundamental right to own any weapon I can afford to buy, even if I'm a felon. Government gets its rights from the people, not the other way around.
No part. But what does all men are created equal have to do with felons owning automatic weapons? I will happily stipulate that felons were "created" equal, but due to their anti-social actions they have forfeited their equality. So neither you, nor felons have the "absolute right" to own automatic weapons. Yes, government gets its rights from the people, because people form societies to create laws by which they will be governed. Without the social contract, live would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" --Thomas Hobbes.
OK, the US Constitution, the law set forth by the people, to govern the management company has no restrictions therein on gun ownership. In fact, it mentions a peoples' RIGHT to keep and carry [any] arms. A felon pays a debt. The debt is determined by the courts, but losing any fundamental rights is never part of that debt. Government cannot take away that with which it does not give.
You need to brush up on your Hobbes. He agrees with me, not with you.
Certainly, he has already voted for a ban on handguns and voted for every restriction on firearms he ever had a chance to.
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAnd scarily, the same is true for Biden. He has a 35 year history of anti-gun legislation under his belt.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyWho the heck is OB???
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Osama Bama?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Osama Bama?
that's despicable Mike... even for you.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Not really, I could have thrown in his middle name for more effect.
If a dingy dimwit like Palin becomes VP to a 72 year old and then is maybe thrust into the Presidency the American people will have an endless list of new concerns and worries! The false notion Dems will impose major new controls on guns will pale as a concern, compared to the utter and complete disaster of a President Palin!
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
She is a damn sight more qualified than Barack Hussein Obama, in every respect.
http://www.236.com/news/2008/10/17/236_proudly_endorses_palinmcca_1_9630.php
EVERY respect? You mean she plays basketball better? You mean because she can sorta see Russia with binoculars, she understands what its like to be in foreign country better than someone who has lived in one? EVERY respect??!!
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
She has run a small city as Mayor, she has run a large state as a Governor, she is Commander of the only National Guard unit that is constantly on active duty and, as such, receives frequent updates by this country's military personnel, and she has a very high security clearance making her privy to information that Barack doesn't have access to.
But you said in EVERY respect. Do you understand the meaning of the word EVERY?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Well, dimwit, didn't realize proficiency at basketball was a qualifier for the Presidency.
Nice cherry picking there brightwit. Now lets talk understanding of foreign countries.
I will agree that Obama is more knowledeable about Muslim countries.
And would you not then agree that in an era where we are extremely concerned about Islamic terrorism being knowledeable [sic] about Muslim countries is much more valuable than being able to play the flute or field dress a moose?
And, would you not agree that being able to play a flute or field dress a moose does not disqualify a person from that office?
A person who had been a Muslim would, of course, be more knowlegeable, but that doesn't mean it qualifies him for the office. People are not given the option to leave the Muslim faith, are they? Doesn't that bring the death penalty?
Other than organizing minority voter registration drives, what experience does Osama bring to the office?
But your contention wasn't that she is "less disqualified." Your contention was that she is more qualified in EVERY respect. Again, I must ask. Do you understand the meaning of the word, EVERY?
Your parsing of the word "every" is to what end? I didn't believe it was necessary to go into minute detail of my meaning of the word "every". Have you no better retort?
I'm not "parsing" the word every. I'm asking you if you know what the word every means? Obviously you do not, because if I can point out even one (no matter how minute... which foreign policy is not) instance where she is not more qualified, then your pronouncement that she is more qualified "in every respect" is just plain false. You are making demonstrably false statements. I need no better retort. ;o)
He maybe went to the Sarah Palin school of debating - if you can't change the subject just claim the libs are parsing words and being anti-American, etc.
***************************
Since Obama will not rule my country "our" rights to own weapons will not be restricted. But I certainly hope he will rstrict "your" rights to own weapons. So many innocent people die because of accidents with privately owned weapons.
I see, you don't want your rights restricted, but you do want our rights restricted. Two faced?
Well since my rights to own guns are already much more restricted than yours that doesn't seem completely unfair to me :-)
If you had pointed that out in your first remarks it would have been clearer.
I know this is hard for you to grasp, Mike, but every red white and blue flag in the world is not an American Flag. pollewop is in the Netherlands where gun ownership IS restricted; so no, he is not being two faced.
Plawler, you idiot, he said "Since Obama will not rule my country "our" rights to own weapons will not be restricted.
Wow... you moderated my comment down. You abject coward!
Yes, he said his rights would not be further restricted, but yours should be. Is it his fault you can't look at the little flag and figure out that he's in the Netherlands?
hahahahaha
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
In Plawler's case it would have to be a "honey" bucket.