• 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!

Harris promises to violate The Constitution

apdst said:
A president can't create laws.
Click to expand...

Laws have to be passed by congress. Amendments have due process. Background checks are no violation of rights.

You don't know what you're talking about again. You're just spreading nonsense and lying. This why people can't have a meeting of the minds on any of this stuff.
 
rocket88 said:
Limiting guns is not "infringing." To infringe is to break, the word you're thinking of is "abridge." The First Amendment rights are not to be abridged, the Second is not to ve infringed. See the difference?

By the way, those words are exactly the wording of each Amedment. It should tell you something that the same word is not used.
Click to expand...

Miriam says this:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Abridged has a totally different definition.

Most other dictionary references say something similar.

Your single word definition is taken (deliberately) out of context.
 
jet57 said:
Laws have to be passed by congress. Amendments have due process. Background checks are no violation of rights.

You don't know what you're talking about again. You're just spreading nonsense and lying. This why people can't have a meeting of the minds on any of this stuff.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, because a president can't create, make, pass, change, or amend laws.
 
jet57 said:
What will she do that violates the second amendment?
Click to expand...

When did I say that it would violate the 2nd Amendment? Can you even read?
 
Tlrmln said:
When did I say that it would violate the 2nd Amendment? Can you even read?
Click to expand...

what Harris proposes to do is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes; I read very well and have excellent comprehension skills. Perhaps you need memory exercises.
 
apdst said:
Irrelevant, because a president can't create, make, pass, change, or amend laws.
Click to expand...


Executive orders are laws as we know them: they're orders: a means to an end.

"Wall funding" for instance.
 
jet57 said:
Yes; I read very well and have excellent comprehension skills. Perhaps you need memory exercises.
Click to expand...

You are also apparently a ninja at quoting people out of context to imply almost the exact opposite of what they actually said. This is also known as lying.

...fail to mention that only one of them (and not the OP) even remotely hinted at the idea that what Harris proposes to do is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
 
jimbo said:
Miriam says this:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Abridged has a totally different definition.

Most other dictionary references say something similar.

Your single word definition is taken (deliberately) out of context.
Click to expand...

Yes, totally different definition. The Second Amendment does not say "abridged." Therefore limits are completely in bounds. And we already accept certain limits - you are not allowed to have a nuclear arsenal, for example (which is a limit on your right to bear arms). The First Amendment should not be limited - tell that to the GOP.

Just admit you like the Second more than the First.
 
SIAP. If the EO, whatever, isn't constitutional, it will be struck down. This isn't rocket science.:roll:
 
jet57 said:
Executive orders are laws as we know them: they're orders: a means to an end.

"Wall funding" for instance.
Click to expand...

Executives are in no way, shape, or fashion a law.

"Wall funding" isn't a law.
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, totally different definition. The Second Amendment does not say "abridged." Therefore limits are completely in bounds. And we already accept certain limits - you are not allowed to have a nuclear arsenal, for example (which is a limit on your right to bear arms). The First Amendment should not be limited - tell that to the GOP.

Just admit you like the Second more than the First.
Click to expand...

Can you find a single document or comment by a founder that supports this silly claim you have made? And you apparently don't understand the concept of federalism. And then you ignore the Tenth Amendment.
 
Not that she stands any chance anyway lol, and it's more likely that a Dem majority after 2020 w/ whoever the Dem nominee is as President will end up passing gun control legislation anyway, so it wouldn't come to this. She's dumb, and I probably wouldn't agree with much of her proposed gun control, but it's not in violation of the constitution, no matter how many times you scream it.
 
Tlrmln said:
Worse case of projecting that I've seen in years. You **** up
Click to expand...
Do explain how I messed up, when saying a thread posted in the Gun Control forum with a title saying Harris will violate the Constitution based upon the statement Harris made about gun control is not about the 2nd Amendment. I'll wait.

Of course we both know you said something stupid and rather than admitting it, are pretending it didn't even happen. The dishonesty on this forum anymore is nearly overwhelming.
 
Tlrmln said:
Strange that the words "2nd Amendment" don't appear anywhere in the title, and the Constitution consists of far more than just the 2nd Amendment, including all those parts telling us what the various branches of government have the power to do.
Click to expand...

Tell conservatives that there's more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment. I think they need a refresher.
 
TurtleDude said:
Can you find a single document or comment by a founder that supports this silly claim you have made? And you apparently don't understand the concept of federalism. And then you ignore the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

What silly claim? That the 2nd doesn't say "abridged?" Check it again.
 
rocket88 said:
What silly claim? That the 2nd doesn't say "abridged?" Check it again.
Click to expand...

NOthing in the constitution gives the federal government ANY power to interfere with arms private citizens want to own or use.

can you cite something to the contrary?
 
rocket88 said:
Tell conservatives that there's more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment. I think they need a refresher.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting claim given the left's hatred of the first and tenth amendments-for starters.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is an interesting claim given the left's hatred of the first and tenth amendments-for starters.
Click to expand...

The right's so called love if the First goes away quickly as soon as SNL criticizes Trump. Then it's "shut down NBC."
 
rocket88 said:
The right's so called love if the First goes away quickly as soon as SNL criticizes Trump. Then it's "shut down NBC."
Click to expand...

Remind me how many times leftwing speakers or celebrities have been prevented from speaking at various universities vs conservative ones. Remind me how many times leftwing or liberal student papers have been destroyed on college campuses vs conservative ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom