• 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!

Michigan shooting suspect's parents willfully disregarded signs that their son was a threat

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
32,552
Reaction score
12,369
you should really try to get rid of us given all the hysterical faux hatred you lob at gun owners and gun rights advocates. Your anti gun sewage is so over the top, I suspect you work for a pro gun group
Bang bang!
 

RF667799

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
10,757
Reaction score
9,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Apology for what?
For claiming I lied. That wasn't polite nor true. It's really beside the point though. I would much rather discuss where you got the idea you are omniscient when it comes to other people's needs. Have you felt that way a long time? What were you doing when the notion first struck you?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
279,642
Reaction score
99,053
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
For claiming I lied. That wasn't polite nor true. It's really beside the point though. I would much rather discuss where you got the idea you are omniscient when it comes to other people's needs. Have you felt that way a long time? What were you doing when the notion first struck you?
part of being a left-winger is assuming that you know what is best for others and thus, this "knowledge" justifies the left winger forcing you to accept their governmental dictates. After all they are only doing this for "our good". If you concede that another person knows what is best for himself or herself, the entire foundation justifying nanny government runs down the toilet
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
bullshit

saying we need a line does not prove it is reasonable

saying we draw other lines does not make this one reasonable

saying some courts have allowed line drawing is not an explanation
Lol.

We went over that in detail.

Instead of insisting on going around and around over the same exact ground, why not just review. You already have my answer.
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
For claiming I lied. That wasn't polite nor true. It's really beside the point though. I would much rather discuss where you got the idea you are omniscient when it comes to other people's needs. Have you felt that way a long time? What were you doing when the notion first struck you?
You lied.

I have opinions. Sure. We all do.

No where did I claim I was the arbiter of anything.

Try reading for comprehension.
 

RF667799

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
10,757
Reaction score
9,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You lied.

I have opinions. Sure. We all do.

No where did I claim I was the arbiter of anything.

Try reading for comprehension.

Well let me understand then. You don't claim nobody needs a 30 round magazine? Why did you say that, then?
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well let me understand then. You don't claim nobody needs a 30 round magazine? Why did you say that, then?

I think what you are missing is context.

Yes I do claim that.

Look at the context. No where do I claim that I am the arbiter.
 

RF667799

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
10,757
Reaction score
9,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think what you are missing is context.

Yes I do claim that.

Look at the context. No where do I claim that I am the arbiter.
So you do make claims about what other people need or don't need. I'll accept your assurances that you aren't an arbiter on this manner. It would be pretty silly, right? To make such a claim you have no way of knowing and to also think you have some sort of authority in the matter.
Why make such a claim if it isn't factual?
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So you do make claims about what other people need or don't need. I'll accept your assurances that you aren't an arbiter on this manner. It would be pretty silly, right? To make such a claim you have no way of knowing and to also think you have some sort of authority in the matter.
Why make such a claim if it isn't factual?
Holy cow guy.

Look at the context. We draw lines all the time. There is no magic number. A 21 year old isn't measurably more responsible with alcohol than a 20 year old. Yet we draw the line.

No it's not silly to draw lines.

But you tell me. What legitimate reason would a person have for needing a 30 round magazine?
 

RF667799

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
10,757
Reaction score
9,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Holy cow guy.

Look at the context. We draw lines all the time. There is no magic number. A 21 year old isn't measurably more responsible with alcohol than a 20 year old. Yet we draw the line.

No it's not silly to draw lines.

But you tell me. What legitimate reason would a person have for needing a 30 round magazine?
If you think you can determine the legitimacy of my reasons, you're back to posing as some sort of arbiter. Only in a sense though, because as has been noted, you don't have the knowledge or authority to determine that legitimacy.
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If you think you can determine the legitimacy of my reasons, you're back to posing as some sort of arbiter. Only in a sense though, because as has been noted, you don't have the knowledge or authority to determine that legitimacy.
Nope. The law is the arbiter. We draw lines all the time. In all kinds of areas. Why do you think we can't here?
 

RF667799

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
10,757
Reaction score
9,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nope. The law is the arbiter. We draw lines all the time. In all kinds of areas. Why do you think we can't here?

We (you and I) are talking about the lines you are trying to draw, based on your overestimation of your knowledge and authority. Not some vague appeal to the authority of others.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
20,586
Reaction score
14,318
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nope. The law is the arbiter. We draw lines all the time. In all kinds of areas. Why do you think we can't here?
Why do you seem to believe that AR-15s and standard capacity magazines aren't protected by the Second Amendment?
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We (you and I) are talking about the lines you are trying to draw, based on your overestimation of your knowledge and authority. Not some vague appeal to the authority of others.
Utter nonsense.

I am talking about how the law draws lines all the time in all kinds of areas.

That is a good thing.
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why do you seem to believe that AR-15s and standard capacity magazines aren't protected by the Second Amendment?
Because laws limiting magazine size have been upheld.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
20,586
Reaction score
14,318
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Because laws limiting magazine size have been upheld.

Should those laws have been upheld?

But other than that, you can't actually show how those are Constitutional? We currently have heavy restrictions on abortion in some states. Are those Constitutional? Should those laws have been upheld?


Regarding the state and local bans, it's interesting how the federal courts all had different reasons for upholding the bans:
In Shew v Malloy, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals noted that AR-15s and 30 round magazines could be presumed to be protected by the Second, but made it a strict vs intermediate scrutiny issue.

In Kolbe v Hogan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals originally kicked back the Maryland ban for review under strict scrutiny, but the liberals on the court realized the Pandora's Box that would open and reviewed the case en banc. Their reasoning for upholding the ban is that AR-15s were "weapons of war" "most useful to a military", which seems to ignore the facts that semiautomatic AR-15s haven't been used in war and that the military owns zero while civilians own 20 million. The decision also ignores US v Miller, which affirmed that weapons useful to a militia are protected by the Second Amendment.

In Friedman v Highland Park, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals came up with "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces th6e perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit.”

Seems like security theater to me, and ignores the part of the public who would feel safer owning an AR-15 with 30 round magazines. Why aren't their feelings important?
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Should those laws have been upheld?

But other than that, you can't actually show how those are Constitutional? We currently have heavy restrictions on abortion in some states. Are those Constitutional? Should those laws have been upheld?


Regarding the state and local bans, it's interesting how the federal courts all had different reasons for upholding the bans:
In Shew v Malloy, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals noted that AR-15s and 30 round magazines could be presumed to be protected by the Second, but made it a strict vs intermediate scrutiny issue.

In Kolbe v Hogan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals originally kicked back the Maryland ban for review under strict scrutiny, but the liberals on the court realized the Pandora's Box that would open and reviewed the case en banc. Their reasoning for upholding the ban is that AR-15s were "weapons of war" "most useful to a military", which seems to ignore the facts that semiautomatic AR-15s haven't been used in war and that the military owns zero while civilians own 20 million. The decision also ignores US v Miller, which affirmed that weapons useful to a militia are protected by the Second Amendment.

In Friedman v Highland Park, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals came up with "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces th6e perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit.”

Seems like security theater to me, and ignores the part of the public who would feel safer owning an AR-15 with 30 round magazines. Why aren't their feelings important?
Yes.
 

RF667799

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
10,757
Reaction score
9,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Utter nonsense.

I am talking about how the law draws lines all the time in all kinds of areas.

That is a good thing.

You were talking about your determination that nobody needs a 30 round magazine. The law is irrelevant to that, unless you are going to claim that your speaking for the entire population, also allows you to speak for "the law."
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
20,586
Reaction score
14,318
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Are in fact AR-15s in common use for lawful purposes?

Why should intermediate scrutiny be used for rights rather than strict scrutiny?

How is an AR-15 a weapon of war?

How is an AR-15 most useful to the military?

How come one side's feelings are more important than the other side's feelings?
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You were talking about your determination that nobody needs a 30 round magazine. The law is irrelevant to that, unless you are going to claim that your speaking for the entire population, also allows you to speak for "the law."
Nope.

So dishonest.
 

NolanVoyd

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
9,112
Reaction score
4,663
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Are in fact AR-15s in common use for lawful purposes?

Why should intermediate scrutiny be used for rights rather than strict scrutiny?

How is an AR-15 a weapon of war?

How is an AR-15 most useful to the military?

How come one side's feelings are more important than the other side's feelings?
All irrelevant.
 
Top Bottom