• 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!

Gun control status poll

Where do you stand on gun legislation restricting firearm ownership?

  • Status Quo - Could use some tweaking but it's generally fine

  • More firearm restrictions needed

  • Less firearm restrictions needed

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
did you miss the part about proper power? Do you really believe the founders intended that the commerce clause give the federal government the power to ignore the second amendment?

Only the SCOTUS could decide to declare those federal infringements of the 2A rights to be “improper” and we all know that is not going to happen. The issue of federal “gun control” is definitely on a one way path towards having more of it, just as is the case for state laws further limiting 2A rights by converting them into mere state issued privileges.
 
Only the SCOTUS could decide to declare those federal infringements of the 2A rights to be “improper” and we all know that is not going to happen. The issue of federal “gun control” is definitely on a one way path towards having more of it, just as is the case for state laws further limiting 2A rights by converting them into mere state issued privileges.
that was because the Democrats had 20 years of unbridled power to appoint federal judges and by the time the GOP got control of the court-precedent had been set. I have never seen a valid argument for the 1934 and most legal scholars try to avoid discussion of it if they like it-because they know how dishonest it was
 
that was because the Democrats had 20 years of unbridled power to appoint federal judges and by the time the GOP got control of the court-precedent had been set. I have never seen a valid argument for the 1934 and most legal scholars try to avoid discussion of it if they like it-because they know how dishonest it was

Yep, precedent has given the country ever more federal government power and that will be used to continue the trend. Now that we have seen what the governments can get away with by declaring a “health emergency”, it is only a matter of time before “gun deaths/injuries” are declared to be a “health emergency”.
 
Yep, precedent has given the country ever more federal government power and that will be used to continue the trend. Now that we have seen what the governments can get away with by declaring a “health emergency”, it is only a matter of time before “gun deaths/injuries” are declared to be a “health emergency”.
which is why I expect a civil war in the next few decades.
 
The USSC is the ultimate authority on rights. And there are boatloads of laws, rules, regulations, jurisdictions, authorities, and other things that regulate "rights." If you're playing rugged individualist away from society, you can probably get away with more shit.

Jury nullification, civil disobedience, and Andrew Jackson all disagree.

USSC power doesn't flow from the constitution, it flows from people deciding to respect their decisions.

You disregard the power of the people over government. From someone that claims to be all about that you really are just an authoritarian aren't you?
 
Jury nullification, civil disobedience, and Andrew Jackson all disagree.

USSC power doesn't flow from the constitution, it flows from people deciding to respect their decisions.

You disregard the power of the people over government. From someone that claims to be all about that you really are just an authoritarian aren't you?
Chuckle. Your rugged individualist freedoms just happen to coincide with all of the mentioned things that regulate your life, huh? :)
 
Chuckle. Your rugged individualist freedoms just happen to coincide with all of the mentioned things that regulate your life, huh? :)

If the government and the USSC decided you could no longer publish any written word without approval from the government, would you meekly go along with that edict?

That's what I am referring to, government can seek to nullify freedoms by edicts, laws and mandates but people will not obey what they think is unjust. Consent of the governed matters in what government decides. Or they aren't a legitimate government.
 
If the government and the USSC decided you could no longer publish any written word without approval from the government, would you meekly go along with that edict?

That's what I am referring to, government can seek to nullify freedoms by edicts, laws and mandates but people will not obey what they think is unjust. Consent of the governed matters in what government decides. Or they aren't a legitimate government.
There's not much consent in our governments.
 
Back
Top Bottom