• 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!

Clearing the air on guns, anti gun owners start.

that's moronic. Civilian police departments who cannot shoot people under circumstances different than we do have them

Read a history book. Then you'll know who in fact is being moronic.

Tip: Washington said of militias, it was leaning on a broken staff (I paraphrase). He urged strongly for a standing military and military academies, but the Continental Congress was having no part of it. They believed solely in citizen militias for national defense. Fact.
 
This sort of comment is not going to go well for you. He is right, many dems have tried to destroy our second amendment rights.

Terrific. What's 1/3rd of Congress (lower chamber)? 170 or so? Name 17 (1/10th) who actively seek to eliminate gun ownership. Good luck.
 
Read a history book. Then you'll know who in fact is being moronic.

Tip: Washington said of militias, it was leaning on a broken staff (I paraphrase). He urged strongly for a standing military and military academies, but the Continental Congress was having no part of it. They believed solely in citizen militias for national defense. Fact.


I used to teach constitutional law. I think I have forgotten more about this issue than you apparently will ever know. I also defended police in shooting cases. You have no clue about the use of force protocols in police Departments. HINT-a cop cannot shoot someone unless he has a reasonable belief that not doing so will cause imminent bodily harm or death to himself or other innocents

SAME THING FOR ME
 
Terrific. What's 1/3rd of Congress (lower chamber)? 170 or so? Name 17 (1/10th) who actively seek to eliminate gun ownership. Good luck.

That is dishonest because the GOP has held congress the last two years and no anti gun laws were able to come up

here are some people who want to ban some guns

Obama
Biden
Schumer
Feinstein
Levin
Brown
Boxer
the Late Loutenberg
Indeed 39 Dem senators supported an AWB
 
I would indeed. Thankfully that's only happening in your delusional mind.



Yes, I'm aware of the disingenuous talking-point pattern currently in use, "we're not trying to take away your guns/the 2nd Amendment, we just want reasonable restrictions..."


Not buying it. The Pelosi AWB that she tried hard to get passed this year would have effectively created a delayed ban on firearms that I currently own.


When people are trying to confiscate my property I tend to become annoyed; odd quirk of mine I know...
 
That is dishonest because the GOP has held congress the last two years and no anti gun laws were able to come up

here are some people who want to ban some guns

Obama
Biden
Schumer
Feinstein
Levin
Brown
Boxer
the Late Loutenberg
Indeed 39 Dem senators supported an AWB

Nope. Also AWB is not eliminating 2A rights any more than a ban on your carrying a nuke is.
 
Nope. Also AWB is not eliminating 2A rights any more than a ban on your carrying a nuke is.

that is so moronic you are now on the "cannot ever be taken seriously" list

if cops use them than the rest of us civilians should too

that is as stupid as saying a ban on Jewish synagogues or Catholic churches does not violate the first amendment as long as there are Buddhist Temples and Anglican cathedrals
 
that is so moronic you are now on the "cannot ever be taken seriously" list

if cops use them than the rest of us civilians should too

that is as stupid as saying a ban on Jewish synagogues or Catholic churches does not violate the first amendment as long as there are Buddhist Temples and Anglican cathedrals

Then why respond? Taking it seriously would contradict.
 
Then why respond? Taking it seriously would contradict.

I like using idiotic arguments to edify people who might be on the fence and your argument is so stupid it might educate others as to what the anti gun far left thinks

tell us newbie what weapons are protected by the second amendment-if any
 
I would indeed. Thankfully that's only happening in your delusional mind.
Didnt I clarify that name calling and calling out is not needed in this thread.
But to respond to that, both restrictions, bans and confiscation came from people all the way up to our Vice President.
Those are pretty serious words to be coming from a group of elected officials pertaining to a constitutional right.
 
Nope. Also AWB is not eliminating 2A rights any more than a ban on your carrying a nuke is.

How is it not. Nothing different on an "assault rifle" than many semi auto hunting rifles except color, stocks and mags.
 
Obama would ban guns if he could He cannot so he incrementally pisses on our rights

Would he? Maybe, maybe not. Can he? No, at least not yet, but the presidency keeps being given more and more power. Even if Obama can't, his successor, or perhaps another one down the road might be able to.
 
How is it not. Nothing different on an "assault rifle" than many semi auto hunting rifles except color, stocks and mags.

The easy answer would be, obviously, that we've had an AW ban in the past and it was not challenged constitutionally. But let's parse ...

The 2A was, clearly, an attempt by the FF to rely on citizen militias for our national defense, in lieu of a standing army, which they unambiguously opposed, fearing a military coup might overthrow the government they were setting up.

But times change, and the world began moving too quickly to allow the many months needed to form and train militias. And thus a standing army was and is needed. So the Supreme Court ruled on the 2A in a modern context, stating, unambiguously that the spirit of the right granted was and is self-defense, and of course hunting, which at the time of the forming of our laws, was vital to feed families, since no Whole Foods were around selling dry-aged prime steaks. And that indeed is the spirit of the 2A, vis a vis rulings by our high court; and it's not even debatable; it's only deniable among those who wish the 2A to be something other than what has been clearly ruled upon.

And thus, overtly offensive weapons can be, have been and are banned, 2A notwithstanding, since we have no right to arms for offensive reasons; our right is to have them to defend our homes and to hunt for food; that's all. For example: I can own a shotgun; but I cannot own one with the barrel cut short -- BECAUSE IT BECOMES WHAT IS PRIMARILY AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON WHICH IS NOT A RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

But that's merely the truth. Deny it if you wish, but it does not change the truth.
 
The easy answer would be, obviously, that we've had an AW ban in the past and it was not challenged constitutionally. But let's parse ...

The 2A was, clearly, an attempt by the FF to rely on citizen militias for our national defense, in lieu of a standing army, which they unambiguously opposed, fearing a military coup might overthrow the government they were setting up.

But times change, and the world began moving too quickly to allow the many months needed to form and train militias. And thus a standing army was and is needed. So the Supreme Court ruled on the 2A in a modern context, stating, unambiguously that the spirit of the right granted was and is self-defense, and of course hunting, which at the time of the forming of our laws, was vital to feed families, since no Whole Foods were around selling dry-aged prime steaks. And that indeed is the spirit of the 2A, vis a vis rulings by our high court; and it's not even debatable; it's only deniable among those who wish the 2A to be something other than what has been clearly ruled upon.

And thus, overtly offensive weapons can be, have been and are banned, 2A notwithstanding, since we have no right to arms for offensive reasons; our right is to have them to defend our homes and to hunt for food; that's all. For example: I can own a shotgun; but I cannot own one with the barrel cut short -- BECAUSE IT BECOMES WHAT IS PRIMARILY AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON WHICH IS NOT A RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

But that's merely the truth. Deny it if you wish, but it does not change the truth.
You really couldnt be more wrong.
I have a right to own whatever I need to defend this nation from all comers, foreign or DOMESTIC.
If local law enforcement has AR15s and pump shot guns its my right to be able to match firepower.
Otherwise what are we beyond subjects?
 
Would he? Maybe, maybe not. Can he? No, at least not yet, but the presidency keeps being given more and more power. Even if Obama can't, his successor, or perhaps another one down the road might be able to.

I think that any president over the last 60 years would recind the 2A in a heartbeat if they were allowed.
Thats why the fight must be kept up.
 
You really couldnt be more wrong.
I have a right to own whatever I need to defend this nation from all comers, foreign or DOMESTIC.
If local law enforcement has AR15s and pump shot guns its my right to be able to match firepower.
Otherwise what are we beyond subjects?

Okay; let's test. Find me a Supreme Court ruling which supports your interpretation of the 2A. Go hog wild. Then see if you can find a ruling which supports what I've stated. (tip: you can with ease)

Ergo, I am right; you are wrong. Clearly.
 
Okay; let's test. Find me a Supreme Court ruling which supports your interpretation of the 2A. Go hog wild. Then see if you can find a ruling which supports what I've stated. (tip: you can with ease)

Ergo, I am right; you are wrong. Clearly.
Any time anyone brings in hunting, food gathering, standing armies. I always know they are muddying the waters of the debate to cover their own wrongs.
 
Any time anyone brings in hunting, food gathering, standing armies. I always know they are muddying the waters of the debate to cover their own wrongs.

How's that search going for a ruling by SCOTUS which supports your contention? Got anything?
 
My contention is the 2A as written is what I go by. And it has served me well.

Yes; that's quite clear. But thanks for clarifying it.
 
Its clear as a bell in those 27 words.

When you ascend to the Supreme Court, and get 4 other Justices on board with you, then how you see it will indeed become the de facto law of our land, since that's how the law will be applied throughout the land.

Good luck. I'm pulling for you.
 
When you ascend to the Supreme Court, and get 4 other Justices on board with you, then how you see it will indeed become the de facto law of our land, since that's how the law will be applied throughout the land.

Good luck. I'm pulling for you.
Well for the most part, there is enough support for the 2A in the Supreme Court.
 
Back
Top Bottom