• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 Rights Outweigh Gun Control In New Pew Survey

Federalist said:
The constitution doesn't restrict what vehicles and weapons may be used by the army. Flying vehicles are not forbidden to the army.
Click to expand...

Constitution doesnt explicitly restrict a lot of things.

Did you miss the first comment I replied to? It claimed the constitution should be read strictly and it has clear statements.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Constitution doesnt explicitly restrict a lot of things.

Did you miss the first comment I replied to? It claimed the constitution should be read strictly and it has clear statements.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Constitution should be read rather strictly, but that doesn't mean that there are any limitations in it on what weapons and vehicles the army and navy may use
 
Federalist said:
I agree that the Constitution should be read rather strictly, but that doesn't mean that there are any limitations in it on what weapons and vehicles the army and navy may use
Click to expand...

I can see the argument being made that the Constitution allows an Army and a Navy, which we have organized as two branches of the military; and that since an additional branch is not named or authorized, that it is unconstitutional for the Air Force to exist as its own branch, separate from the Army or the Navy. I think such an argument strains at a gnat, forcing a literal interpretation that isn't in keeping with the obvious intent. It's rather like arguing that freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as affirmed in the First Amendment, do not apply to radio, television, the Internet, or any other modern media, but only to in-person speaking, and to a published newspaper.

Just as I think the Constitutional mention of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are intended clearly to protect a broader freedom of thought and expression; so, I think, are the mentions of an army and a navy intended to authorize the existence of whatever federal military force is necessary to fulfill the federal responsibility for national defense. It would, after all, be contradictory for the Constitution to delegate this responsibility to the government, while denying government the means necessary to fulfill this responsibility.

In any event, it would be easy to adapt to the strict literal interpretation that only authorizes an army and a navy, and no other branch. The Air Force was originally a corps within the Army, just as the Marines are a corps within the Navy. If it were to be determined that the federal government is indeed only authorized to have these two branches of the military, then it would only be a matter of managerial reorganization to put the Air Force back under the Army, as a corps thereunder instead of as a separate branch.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I can see the argument being made that the Constitution allows an Army and a Navy, which we have organized as two branches of the military; and that since an additional branch is not named or authorized, that it is unconstitutional for the Air Force to exist as its own branch, separate from the Army or the Navy. I think such an argument strains at a gnat, forcing a literal interpretation that isn't in keeping with the obvious intent. It's rather like arguing that freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as affirmed in the First Amendment, do not apply to radio, television, the Internet, or any other modern media, but only to in-person speaking, and to a published newspaper.

Just as I think the Constitutional mention of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are intended clearly to protect a broader freedom of thought and expression; so, I think, are the mentions of an army and a navy intended to authorize the existence of whatever federal military force is necessary to fulfill the federal responsibility for national defense. It would, after all, be contradictory for the Constitution to delegate this responsibility to the government, while denying government the means necessary to fulfill this responsibility.

In any event, it would be easy to adapt to the strict literal interpretation that only authorizes an army and a navy, and no other branch. The Air Force was originally a corps within the Army, just as the Marines are a corps within the Navy. If it were to be determined that the federal government is indeed only authorized to have these two branches of the military, then it would only be a matter of managerial reorganization to put the Air Force back under the Army, as a corps thereunder instead of as a separate branch.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree.
 
Crimefree said:
You review? Now that has to be a joke. What qualification do you have for factual truthful reviews? Do you have some references that can be checked. Can I ask around here?
Click to expand...

I get it - you are impotent to present the very evidence you claim supports you. Perfect. :doh:roll::shock:
 
haymarket said:
I get it - you are impotent to present the very evidence you claim supports you. Perfect. :doh:roll::shock:
Click to expand...

what evidence have you ever presented

when asked what documents from the founders support your silly claims about the 2A you cite the 2A

when asked what documents from the founders support your fanciful claims that the militia act is really a power of congress to tell private citizens what sort of weapons they can own, you cite the militia clause while ignoring tons of documents from the founders that demonstrate that free men being armed was a key right to them

impotent-I can see why you use it so much-it fits your posts perfectly
 
haymarket said:
I get it - you are impotent to present the very evidence you claim supports you. Perfect. :doh:roll::shock:
Click to expand...

A simple question on your ability and qualification to do what you claim......

So you have nothing but a puffed up opinion on irrelevancy. Thanks for the confirmation. Do you have anything you can defend?
 
I had a feeling this might have happened:

What The Media Isn't Saying About Support For Stronger Gun Laws | Blog | Media Matters for America

Media outlets are heavily touting a poll from Pew Research Center supposedly showing "growing public support for gun rights," but Pew's polling question is flawed because it presents a false choice between regulating gun ownership and protecting gun rights. In response to the Pew poll, a prominent gun violence researcher said, "I could not think of a worse way to ask questions about public opinions about gun policies."
Click to expand...

According to experts, the question is flawed because respondents have to pick between support for gun regulation or gun rights, as if those premises were mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you agree with that sentence, the poll should have included that option.
 
blaxshep said:
A right that can not be infringed does not have a balance. It is either 100% or not.
Click to expand...

And that is the black-and-white mentality that I find disturbing.
 
Phys251 said:
And that is the black-and-white mentality that I find disturbing.
Click to expand...

It isn't disturbing. It is MEANT to guarantee the right remains a right. Thank our lucky stars the FF's had the foresight to understand that many people are bothered by absolutes, even when those absolutes are intended to guarantee their liberty and freedoms.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
I had a feeling this might have happened:

What The Media Isn't Saying About Support For Stronger Gun Laws | Blog | Media Matters for America

Regardless of whether you agree with that sentence, the poll should have included that option.
Click to expand...

Why does the negate the results of pew report?

Ignorance is a lovely thing when it comes to propaganda and who figured the Pew report is based on a comparison with other surveys which show the same trend.

The one thing you can guarantee is that gun control will not allow any research published that gains popularity to stand in the public mind. All that is needed is to cast doubt any way one can. Gun control did that protecting its waning position because unlike firearm organisations gun control is never ever going to throw the towel in.
 
haymarket said:
I get it - you are impotent to present the very evidence you claim supports you. Perfect.
Click to expand...
:lamo

I get it - you are impotent to present the very evidence you claim supports you. Why would I have expected you to respond in a logical way. That would have been a miracle, at least a first.
 
haymarket said:
You have not provided any verifiable evidence I falsely presented any information.

So your premise is false upon its face.
Click to expand...

You did not address the topic and provided no evidence to back up your false claim. Clearly stated. Why do you have so much trouble with the English language?

Now you once again make a false claim trying to look smart (propaganda) when you are not. My premise stands you have not refuted it or offered any evidence that does.
 
lizzie said:
It isn't disturbing. It is MEANT to guarantee the right remains a right. Thank our lucky stars the FF's had the foresight to understand that many people are bothered by absolutes, even when those absolutes are intended to guarantee their liberty and freedoms.
Click to expand...
Direct hit.
 
Crimefree said:
:lamo

I get it - you are impotent to present the very evidence you claim supports you. Why would I have expected you to respond in a logical way. That would have been a miracle, at least a first.
Click to expand...

your reply makes no sense following the post of mine you reproduced as its lead in.

I made this offer to you

I would be happy to review any verifiable evidence you are able to present.
Click to expand...

and all you did was snipe and carp at it without presenting any verifiable evidence. You were intent on attacking me with some snarky insult and ignored my serious offer to look at your evidence.
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
You did not address the topic and provided no evidence to back up your false claim. Clearly stated. Why do you have so much trouble with the English language?

Now you once again make a false claim trying to look smart (propaganda) when you are not. My premise stands you have not refuted it or offered any evidence that does.
Click to expand...

I most certainly did. You have not provided any verifiable evidence I falsely presented any information.

So your premise is false upon its face.
 
haymarket said:
I most certainly did. You have not provided any verifiable evidence I falsely presented any information.

So your premise is false upon its face.
Click to expand...

Best prove your claim then and show what verifiable evidence you presented..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom