• 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!

Numbers for future reference [W:430]

JamesBY said:
Well regulated (heh) by the federal government. They are not in common use, as you well know. As long as they are regulated and watched over, the 'well to do' can own what the government says they can own.
Click to expand...

since almost every civilian police department has select fire rifles and since select fire rifles are issued to just about every member of the military, those weapons are in common use and since they are used in civilian environments by civilian cops, they are clearly not unusually dangerous
 
TurtleDude said:
given machine guns that once sold for 750 dollars now go for 25,000 the demand is high. Nothing proves the dishonesty of gun banners more than the Hughes amendment-what was the "need" or Crime control purpose to ban the sale of new machine guns to citizens when there were only 1-2 cases in 80 years of them being used for serious crime?
Click to expand...

The demand is high for a very limited sector. The average shooter does not really care about machine guns, they amount to an expensive toy. I however do agree with the unconstitutional nature of the Hughes amendment and the crime control ban. Just a feel good band aid that literally did nothing for abating crime.
 
Black Dog said:
The demand is high for a very limited sector. The average shooter does not really care about machine guns, they amount to an expensive toy. I however do agree with the unconstitutional nature of the Hughes amendment and the crime control ban. Just a feel good band aid that literally did nothing for abating crime.
Click to expand...

it wasn't even properly passed--Hughes was soiling himself over the FAOPA imminent passage so he conspired with Rangel to poison it with this idiocy. No evidence was produced in favor of it. It was based on pure spite. Its unconstitutional and it should be struck down based on Heller and Miller. If you didn't have to pay 200 dollars for a MG wait a year and pay 15X what the gun is worth, lots of people would buy them
 
Black Dog said:
You cannot be detained until you are not suicidal in most states. In most states you be be held for observation for 72 hours or less unless you commit yourself. Close relatives can go to court to have you committed in some cases, again this requires due process.

Well what do you consider "more effective?"
Click to expand...

Untrue. You can be held for 72 hours. Then a psychiatrist can detain you further but a judge must agree. You can continue to be held as long as a judge agrees. Your relatives have nothing to do with it. You are referring to mental incapitation which is a very different process
 
vegas giants said:
Untrue. You can be held for 72 hours. Then a psychiatrist can detain you further but a judge must agree. You can continue to be held as long as a judge agrees. Your relatives have nothing to do with it. You are referring to mental incapitation which is a very different process
Click to expand...

As I said in most states so it depends on the state. I also said it requires due process. Sp please feel free to point out what was untrue, oh looks like nothing was untrue.

Although the exact policies governing involuntary hospitalization vary among states, certain health care providers can be certified to hospitalize a patient against his or her will if specific conditions are met. These conditions almost always involve dangerousness to self or others. This authority is taken very seriously by psychiatrists and other certified health care providers, and important checks and balances exist to minimize inappropriate decisions. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ntally-ill-be-hospitalized-against-their-will
 
Black Dog said:
As I said in most states so it depends on the state. I also said it requires due process. Sp please feel free to point out what was untrue, oh looks like nothing was untrue.

Although the exact policies governing involuntary hospitalization vary among states, certain health care providers can be certified to hospitalize a patient against his or her will if specific conditions are met. These conditions almost always involve dangerousness to self or others. This authority is taken very seriously by psychiatrists and other certified health care providers, and important checks and balances exist to minimize inappropriate decisions. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ntally-ill-be-hospitalized-against-their-will
Click to expand...

You said you can not be detained until you are not suicidal. That statement is untrue in every state in the union
 
vegas giants said:
You said you can not be detained until you are not suicidal.
Click to expand...

No. I said in most states, huge difference. In fact here is exactly what I said...

You cannot be detained until you are not suicidal in most states. - Black Dog

vegas giants said:
That statement is untrue in every state in the union
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

The laws governing involuntary commitment vary from country to country and state to state, but, in general, laws restrict involuntary commitment to those who are mentally ill and/or under the influence of drugs or alcohol and are deemed to be in imminent danger of harming themselves or others. In the United States, the maximum initial time for involuntary commitment is usually 3 to 5 days.

Thus, if the police are called to a location, for whatever reason, and observe an individual meeting the above requirements, they may take him or her to a psychiatric ward. There, the individual will be assessed by a psychiatrist, and, if determined to be in need of involuntary commitment based on local law, will be held and treated against his or her will. (It should be noted that people cannot be committed just because others deem their actions to be "bizarre" or "crazy.") - What is Involuntary Commitment? - Suicide.org!

I also mentioned due process as a judge or psychiatrist cannot just keep you locked up involuntarily above and beyond the 3 to 5 days (again depending on the state) without due process.

If the individual is not discharged on or before the 3 to 5 day limit because additional treatment is necessary, a court order may be sought to extend the involuntary commitment. The patient has a right to seek counsel and fight the involuntary commitment at this juncture if so desired. - What is Involuntary Commitment? - Suicide.org!
 
TurtleDude said:
it wasn't even properly passed--Hughes was soiling himself over the FAOPA imminent passage so he conspired with Rangel to poison it with this idiocy. No evidence was produced in favor of it. It was based on pure spite. Its unconstitutional and it should be struck down based on Heller and Miller. If you didn't have to pay 200 dollars for a MG wait a year and pay 15X what the gun is worth, lots of people would buy them
Click to expand...

In 22 cal :) that FA gets expensive. I stomp around behind a shooting range on the river. Me and my pal hear FA fire and we joke based on the duration of fire. BANG BANGG...15$ downrange in a hurry! :)
 
Black Dog said:
No. I said in most states, huge difference. In fact here is exactly what I said...

You cannot be detained until you are not suicidal in most states. - Black Dog



Wrong again.

The laws governing involuntary commitment vary from country to country and state to state, but, in general, laws restrict involuntary commitment to those who are mentally ill and/or under the influence of drugs or alcohol and are deemed to be in imminent danger of harming themselves or others. In the United States, the maximum initial time for involuntary commitment is usually 3 to 5 days.

Thus, if the police are called to a location, for whatever reason, and observe an individual meeting the above requirements, they may take him or her to a psychiatric ward. There, the individual will be assessed by a psychiatrist, and, if determined to be in need of involuntary commitment based on local law, will be held and treated against his or her will. (It should be noted that people cannot be committed just because others deem their actions to be "bizarre" or "crazy.") - What is Involuntary Commitment? - Suicide.org!

I also mentioned due process as a judge or psychiatrist cannot just keep you locked up involuntarily above and beyond the 3 to 5 days (again depending on the state) without due process.

If the individual is not discharged on or before the 3 to 5 day limit because additional treatment is necessary, a court order may be sought to extend the involuntary commitment. The patient has a right to seek counsel and fight the involuntary commitment at this juncture if so desired. - What is Involuntary Commitment? - Suicide.org!
Click to expand...

You said you could not be detained until you are not suicidal. Read your own post. That is a false statement in every state in the union. Dude. I am positive on this
 
TurtleDude said:
what are the restrictions the founders intended for the second amendment?
Click to expand...

I do not care what they intended. They are not here. Scotus makes that call now
 
vegas giants said:
I do not care what they intended. They are not here. Scotus makes that call now
Click to expand...

Fortunately, Gorsuch (perhaps the jewel of the Trump election) Has kept the court from being hopelessly liberal for the next umpteen years. So...there is that.

Good to know you think the constitution is "alive" many radical liberals feel the same. Change your lean and be internet honest.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Fortunately, Gorsuch (perhaps the jewel of the Trump election) Has kept the court from being hopelessly liberal for the next umpteen years. So...there is that.

Good to know you think the constitution is "alive" many radical liberals feel the same. Change your lean and be internet honest.
Click to expand...

Many many many legal scholars agree with me. Too bad for you
 
vegas giants said:
I do not care what they intended. They are not here. Scotus makes that call now
Click to expand...

you claimed that all rights have restrictions. when asked about that, you refuse to answer. So you were just making that up?
 
TurtleDude said:
you claimed that all rights have restrictions. when asked about that, you refuse to answer. So you were just making that up?
Click to expand...

All rights do have restrictions. ...you disagree?
 
vegas giants said:
Notorious RBG. And her opinion carries more weight than yours
Click to expand...

well I can articulate why most of Scalia is correct. RBG did not write a dissent, she merely joined one. edify us as to your understanding of why the Stevens and Breyer dissents are correct and why Stevens argument that "he could not believe the founders would create a federal government without the power to ban guns" and thus he reads the second amendment as allowing gun bans.

you have the floor

demonstrate you actually understand this discussion by telling us the basis of RBGs positions and do it in the next 5 minutes to prove you aren't googling frantically
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Then you wake up and the show is over.
Click to expand...


He has never proved any ability, in his posts, to discuss constitutional legal theory or constitutional history. I am giving him the chance to discuss the basis of say Breyer's dissent (which is a joke btw)
 
Slingshot Bob said:
To bad she has one foot in the grave and the other on a nanna peel, what is she 90? Trump will replace her likely in 2 years or less.
Click to expand...

If I were a betting man, i figure she is gone in the next three but she hates Trump so much she might hold on purely out of spite
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom