• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Overturned by Appeals Court

when a governmental entity issues a firearm to a civilian police officer-what that governmental entity is doing is saying this

"THIS FIREARM is the best weapon for SELF DEFENSE in a CIVILIAN ENVIRONMENT, by our employees.

Now how can the same entity turn around and say such firearms have NO SUITABLE reasons for other civilians to own them in their homes?

No, it ins't. What they are saying is Peace through superior fire power; we don't want to have to "fight fair" with, those of the opposing view.
 
do you think posting in stilted affected "English" adds weight to a vacant argument? I worked for the DOJ. I had to undergo background checks every five years. I also buy lots of guns-I get a cursory background check at least a dozen times a year. speaking of Russians-your confused manner of writing could be due to Russian being your first language

So what; Carter Page went to the Naval Academy.

What does this mean to You, right winger with your limited understanding of plain reasoning in English and legal axioms?


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
Will the supreme Court be any more forthcoming, if the several States ignore the first (prefatory) paragraph in favor of the second Operational paragraph?
 
I like to make this point: Liberals will always say that when the 2nd Amendment was enacted firearms were basically just muskets, so a far cry different than firearm technology today. To which I will respond by noting that -- YES, and the founding fathers gave to the people the exact SAME firearm technology that all of the standing armies of Europe and North America had--- and for a good reason; to protect us against a rogue government--- outside of the US or inside of the US.

technically the founders believed the people already had that right and twice they prevented the government from interfering with that
 
technically the founders believed the people already had that right and twice they prevented the government from interfering with that


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

was the ninth circuit panel correct in finding the californian ban unconstitutional ?
 
was the ninth circuit panel correct in finding the californian ban unconstitutional ?

This is what should happen:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
This is what should happen:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

that's not an answer that has anything to do with either this thread or the question I asked you

I want to see if you are actually understanding what this thread discusses and whether or not you believe the Ninth circuit made the correct decision
 
that's not an answer that has anything to do with either this thread or the question I asked you

I want to see if you are actually understanding what this thread discusses and whether or not you believe the Ninth circuit made the correct decision

the unorganized militia is not necessary to the security of a free State and has no need for high capacity magazines. if persons of the People want high capacity magazines, they should be more Patriotic and enroll in the Organized militia.
 
the unorganized militia is not necessary to the security of a free State and has no need for high capacity magazines. if persons of the People want high capacity magazines, they should be more Patriotic and enroll in the Organized militia.

still not an answer. I can only assume that you are unable to understand the legal reasoning of the court
 
This is what should happen:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Random word generator is busted.
 
still not an answer. I can only assume that you are unable to understand the legal reasoning of the court

I understand that the first paragraph of DC v Heller can be safely ignored by the several States since the supreme Court will not challenge it because they have no valid answer as to why they bore false witness to the Rules of Construction on this issue.

Was there Any vested interest involved?
 
Random word generator is busted.

lol.

Proof the right wing has Nothing but appeals to Ignorance of express laws and they don't care, just like any illegal. Willing to bear False Witness about it is immoral. Why should anyone take the right wing morally seriously in abortion threads? It may be detrimental to the greater glory of our immortal souls with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge. Job 34a:30 applies.

The Constitution of the State of New York

ARTICLE XII

DEFENSE

[Defense; militia]
Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
lol.

Proof the right wing has Nothing but appeals to Ignorance of express laws and they don't care, just like any illegal. Willing to bear False Witness about it is immoral. Why should anyone take the right wing morally seriously in abortion threads? It may be detrimental to the greater glory of our immortal souls with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge. Job 34a:30 applies.

I don't live in New York.
 
I understand that the first paragraph of DC v Heller can be safely ignored by the several States since the supreme Court will not challenge it because they have no valid answer as to why they bore false witness to the Rules of Construction on this issue.

Was there Any vested interest involved?

With this ruling, it doesn't seem they can ignore it. I'm not sure one can bear false witness against a scrap of paper, or that one should not do so of one can.
 
lol.

Proof the right wing has Nothing but appeals to Ignorance of express laws and they don't care, just like any illegal. Willing to bear False Witness about it is immoral. Why should anyone take the right wing morally seriously in abortion threads? It may be detrimental to the greater glory of our immortal souls with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge. Job 34a:30 applies.

No, it's "proof" that word salad is not convincing.
 
Just like last time. Magpul is in for a busy week or two.

They already are hard to get them even on their site, and they fly off the shelf as soon as they are put out.
 
It is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment. What is Necessary not Optional to the security of our free States.

New York's constitution applies to the state of New York.
 
Having no valid Argument for rebuttal.

1. That's not "hypocrisy". Get a dictionary.

2. In order to rebut your argument, it has to be coherent. It's impossible to rebut a nonsensical jumble of words.
 
1. That's not "hypocrisy". Get a dictionary.

2. In order to rebut your argument, it has to be coherent. It's impossible to rebut a nonsensical jumble of words.

Sure it is. Claiming You are Right simply for being on the right wing is a fallacy and form of hypocrisy since you have not won any argument by resorting to the fewest fallacies. The truest witness bearer of them All, is the least Hypocrite (unto God).
 
Back
Top Bottom