• 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!

Federal appeals court says states can restrict open carry of firearms

natman said:
Thanks for drifting the thread back on topic.

Hawaii's law fails on point 3. Since they do not in practice issue concealed carry licenses, there are no "open ample alternatives that are constitutionally acceptable" available. Theoretically offering concealed carry licenses doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Do you also believe that eliminating all "open carry" is narrowly tailored as well?
 
Cope said:
Do you also believe that eliminating all "open carry" is narrowly tailored as well?
Click to expand...
Not really, but whether or not something is "narrowly tailored" is a lot more ambiguous than flat out not having any "open ample alternatives that are constitutionally acceptable". So I went with that.
 
Cope said:
Post #190
Click to expand...
In other words, ya got bupkis. It would be nice to carry on a rational, relevant discussion. See, e.g., post #223. I guess that shall remain a forlorn hope. In other, other words, non responsive. As expected. Ta ta!
 
NWRatCon said:
In other words, ya got bupkis. It would be nice to carry on a rational, relevant discussion. I guess that shall remain a forlorn hope.

In other words, non responsive. As expected.
Click to expand...

Or an actual post number for you to go respond to since it answered your question. Much easier to try and be dismissive though.
 
Cope said:
Or an actual post number for you to go respond to since it answered your question. Much easier to try and be dismissive though.
Click to expand...
Easy to dismiss when it is non responsive, incomplete and irrelevant. Do you even know why?

You have yet to post substantively on the topic. Do you even know what the subject is? Do you know how the court ruled (hint: I posted a link)? Do you know why? Does that matter to you? Does the actual topic matter to you? Should any of us care?
 
NWRatCon said:
Easy to dismiss when it is non responsive, incomplete and irrelevant. Do you even know why?

You have yet to post substantively on the topic. Do you even know what the subject is? Do you know how the court ruled (hint: I posted a link)? Do you know why? Does that matter to you? Does the actual topic matter to you? Should any of us care?
Click to expand...
How about, instead of the blind attacks, you go read the thread, follow along to why I posted what I posted and then come back with a response, yeah?

Conversely you can continue with the circle jerk of posting drivel which has nothing whatsoever to do with the post you chose out of thin air to respond to, with no context.

You pick. Talk about lack of substance!

When you choose to be rational instead of the blind attacking then we can have a rational discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom