• 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!

If you enjoy your constitutional rights don't vote for Hillary.

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you believe there's a misunderstanding in our country of the amendment?

I don't know of any survey that has tested how well people understand what the Supreme Court said in D.C. v. Heller, which was the first case in which the Court had ever fully construed the Second Amendment.

In the 1930s we passed a national firearms act on weapons to keep them out of the hands of citizens. They did this by creating a tax that was so high that citizens could not afford the weapons. Why did we not just bar them at the time?

I don't agree that the purpose of that act was to keep "weapons" in general out of the hands of citizens. In any event, Miller, the Supreme Court decision that upheld part of that act as to sawed-off shotguns, does not stand for very much today. The Court in Heller gave Miller a very narrow reading. Any law, then or now, that banned all weapons would be plainly unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
 

TaterTots

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
373
Reaction score
127
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This thread reminds me that a lot of Americans do not vote for anything but the presidential election. "My candidate agrees with me" blah blah. That doesn't mean jack. Republicans control the senate right now....because no one votes outside of presidential elections. Keep voting for your left wing propaganda and I'll keep voting for Republicans to have control of the senate lol.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This thread reminds me that a lot of Americans do not vote for anything but the presidential election. "My candidate agrees with me" blah blah. That doesn't mean jack. Republicans control the senate right now....because no one votes outside of presidential elections. Keep voting for your left wing propaganda and I'll keep voting for Republicans to have control of the senate lol.

It is really simple. Anyone who votes for a party that thinks so little of our rights it wants to remove them is certifiably insane and not only a danger to themselves but the country.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know of any survey that has tested how well people understand what the Supreme Court said in D.C. v. Heller, which was the first case in which the Court had ever fully construed the Second Amendment.

I think the question was more to what people think the constitution means, the 2A at least. I don't know of a SC judge who can interpret 27 easy words and get even close.

I don't agree that the purpose of that act was to keep "weapons" in general out of the hands of citizens. In any event, Miller, the Supreme Court decision that upheld part of that act as to sawed-off shotguns, does not stand for very much today. The Court in Heller gave Miller a very narrow reading. Any law, then or now, that banned all weapons would be plainly unconstitutional.

Any firearm protected by the constitution is what you really mean. The NFA is unconstitutional on many fronts.

The NFA was about placing work in the hands of governments alcohol gang. It had a number or requirements but machine guns were its main focus. The Thompson in particular as a gun of criminal choice brought about by idiocy that fostered the beginning of organised crime and a +33 year period of lawlessness, corruption and great amounts of violence. Note up to that point prohibition of alcohol was the largest successful propaganda campaign in the US. Gun control is now the largest.
 

TaterTots

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
373
Reaction score
127
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It is really simple. Anyone who votes for a party that thinks so little of our rights it wants to remove them is certifiably insane and not only a danger to themselves but the country.


I find it fascinating that the narrative went from, "we don't want to ban guns, we simply want stricter gun control," to, "I'm perfectly fine with banning firearms." This has been coming out of peoples mouths more and more. I also love the Australia excuse. We are not Australia. We have more guns than people and we have borders with different countries. We aren't as isolated.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I find it fascinating that the narrative went from, "we don't want to ban guns, we simply want stricter gun control," to, "I'm perfectly fine with banning firearms." This has been coming out of peoples mouths more and more. I also love the Australia excuse. We are not Australia. We have more guns than people and we have borders with different countries. We aren't as isolated.

Australia is not a good example for them nor is UK. Both have increases of crime from decreasing crime before gun control which has only reduced Australia 8 years later UK 12 years later. Neither have offered a valid explanation nor can they explain why the decrease is not attributable to other reasons. Increased policing for example. They cannot explain the delay either.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

John Lott's Website: Some notes on claims about Australia's crime rates

Comparing countries

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,595
Reaction score
1,096
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sen. Clinton and Mr. Trump, being liberal Democrats, are ignorant of the Constitution and what they've heard about it--it restricts government--they hate. The both of them, the idea that the people should control the government is terrifying. In LibWorld the government should control the people, absolutely.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sen. Clinton and Mr. Trump, being liberal Democrats, are ignorant of the Constitution and what they've heard about it--it restricts government--they hate. The both of them, the idea that the people should control the government is terrifying. In LibWorld the government should control the people, absolutely.

In the liberal utopia there are no rights only privileges.
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sunday, George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ "This Week": “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right...”

But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.


Stephanopoulos also asked Hillary on Sunday about her support in 1993 for a 25 percent sales tax on handguns. This is enough to add a hundred or more dollars to the price of a gun. Clinton wouldn’t say if she still supported such a tax, but she appeared to justify the proposal by talking about the costs of gun violence. Of course, she has never acknowledged the fact that guns are used to stop crimes 4 to 5 times more often than they are used to commit them.

Hillary never mentions it, but the new background checks that she keeps pushing will also make guns more costly and not make us safer. In Washington and New York City, expanding background checks to private transfers will add at least $125 to the cost of obtaining a gun. In New Jersey, it usually adds $100. It is as low as $60 in Washington State.

On Sunday, Hillary also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes. As her rival Bernie Sanders, of all people, has explained: “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” Even if Sanders exaggerates when he says that Hillary’s proposal will eliminate guns in the U.S., everyone knows that this change in rules will raise the cost of guns and put many out of business.

After adding up all these fees, taxes, and liabilities, few Americans are going to be able to afford guns. That is especially true for the people who need guns the most for protection — poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. It wouldn't be surprising if some otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to buying guns illegally.

It's time for someone to ask Clinton a simple question: Won’t overturning the Heller decision make gun bans possible again? If so, exactly how is Donald Trump’s statement wrong?

Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president | Fox News

In all this defense of the 2nd amendment lets not forget about all the others - many of which Mr. Trump is not only completely unfamiliar with but also seemingly indifferent too.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In all this defense of the 2nd amendment lets not forget about all the others - many of which Mr. Trump is not only completely unfamiliar with but also seemingly indifferent too.

Such things have a remedy from the rights owners. All they have to do is say stop. Not difficult at all. That is the way a republic works. Power is vested in the people. Of course once people find out they can vote for largess it simply becomes a shooting match of who can promise the most goodies to the public.
 
Top Bottom