• 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!

please list what additional gun laws you would like.

Scalia loves to be told that he's an idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution. Let me know how that goes.

Really? Did not know you knew him personally.:roll::roll:
 
Really? Did not know you knew him personally.:roll::roll:

I wasn't aware you had to be close friends with someone to be aware that they don't like something.

Setting that aside, do you have a response to my above post? Are Scalia and the other Justices in the majority just plain wrong?
 
Setting that aside, do you have a response to my above post? Are Scalia and the other Justices in the majority just plain wrong?
Coming from you this is actually funny, considering your extreme allergy to providing substantive response of your own.

However, as I am yet a gentleman, the answer to your question re: Scalia, et al, is that yes, they are wrong that the 2nd Amendment does not preclude abrogating the rights of persons convicted of felonies to keep and bear arms.
 
Coming from you this is actually funny, considering your extreme allergy to providing substantive response of your own.

However, as I am yet a gentleman, the answer to your question re: Scalia, et al, is that yes, they are wrong that the 2nd Amendment does not preclude abrogating the rights of persons convicted of felonies to keep and bear arms.

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You think you're better versed in the Constitution than the Supreme Court, and I don't.
 
It really pisses me off that someone can have a gun in their car at work and I cannot even Smoke at work. What is wrong with this picture? This is wrong on so many levels and I am thinking about talking to a lawyer about this.

Edit: see I cannot even go out to my car and smoke but you can have a gun in your car. WTF? This is not right and I am really thinking of bringing a lawsuit. :(
 
Last edited:
It really pisses me off that someone can have a gun in their car at work and I cannot even Smoke at work. What is wrong with this picture? This is wrong on so many levels and I am thinking about talking to a lawyer about this.

Edit: see I cannot even go out to my car and smoke but you can have a gun in your car. WTF? This is not right and I am really thinking of bringing a lawsuit. :(

Most employers have a designated area outside for smokers. Your employer seems to be very anal about this. I would be looking for another job, if it wasn't for the current economic situation....
 
It really pisses me off that someone can have a gun in their car at work and I cannot even Smoke at work. What is wrong with this picture? This is wrong on so many levels and I am thinking about talking to a lawyer about this.

Edit: see I cannot even go out to my car and smoke but you can have a gun in your car. WTF? This is not right and I am really thinking of bringing a lawsuit. :(

You should! EVERYONE knows you have the constitutional right to smoke where ever you want!! You should look it up, I think it's the eleventy-ninth amendment.

:roll:
 
Some people find second-hand smoke bothersome. Personally, I smoke cigars, but I don't like being in a room full of other's people's smoke... heck I don't smoke my own cigars except in a well-ventilated area.

Anyway... comparing the use of cigarettes to the possession of a gun is pretty ridiculous. The former is a use of a item that arguably affects others, and that is not constitutionally protected, and serves no benevolent purpose; the latter is the possession of something that is Constitutionally protected and that serves the benevolent purpose of defense against criminal aggression.

The comparison would be more apt if it compared smoking cigarettes (use) to shooting a gun (use). :)

Maybe I should petition my employer to put in a target range.

G.
 
Most employers have a designated area outside for smokers. Your employer seems to be very anal about this. I would be looking for another job, if it wasn't for the current economic situation....

Not this place.. I have to walk out to the road or go somehwere during break to smoke. I do admit that most of us sneak to smoke:mrgreen: A lot of the security are cool about it since they smoke too. lol.
 
This is a carry over from another thread.

There are thousands of gun laws already on the books. That being said:



Tell me what additional law would you like. And how will it reduce gun crime.

Well you don't state that it is only for America so;

I'd like gun laws to be greatly relaxed in Britain including handguns so that it becomes relatively easy for the law-abiding to own one as is our ancient liberty as Englishmen confirmed under the 1689 bill of rights(and yes I even let Papists own them;).).
 
An open carry law. Citizens should be allowed to carry firearms openly (with obvious exceptions for places such as schools and the courthouse, and anywhere a member of Congress is giving a speech).

To Hell with these restrictions too.

If you won't do it in front of an armed crowd of americans, mebbe you should not fekking do it.
 
I would have no problem with registration if I had any kind of meaningful assurance that the registry would not be used in short order to assist in confiscation.

Problem is, that's how it went down in the UK, in Canada, and in Australia. And all of the same people calling for registration are the people saying that they don't understand why regular people need to have guns at all.

It's always funny to watch the justifications for gun registration.. and then the mis-speak when it comes to "it won't happen here". :)

It's kinda telling when the two posters that made me start this thread, still have not made an appearance. :lol:


Winston? Will? :lol:

Are you seriously surprised?
 
nope not at all. Just remember this thread when they say thier agenda is not our loss of our rights.
 
I would like to see a Federal measure to have each state recognize and honor other states' CCW permits when someone is traveling through or temporarily visiting.

I would also like to see no more "restrictions" on make/model of firearms. If a state wants to be THAT paranoid then possibly require an advanced training permit before the transfer of said firearm is possible.

I don't believe "May" issue or "Non" issue states are doing ANYONE except for criminals justice.

Besides, more shall issue, more paperwork and processing = more income for the state.

More training courses to be taken = more income for the state as well.

Win/Win
 
It really pisses me off that someone can have a gun in their car at work and I cannot even Smoke at work. What is wrong with this picture? This is wrong on so many levels and I am thinking about talking to a lawyer about this.

Edit: see I cannot even go out to my car and smoke but you can have a gun in your car. WTF? This is not right and I am really thinking of bringing a lawsuit. :(

Just FYI, I believe it is illegal to "restrict" people from smoking inside of their car. An employer cannot dictate what legal act you do or do not do on your break (off of their property) and the inside of your car (no matter where your car is parked) is private property.

You could fight that. It has been done in Washington state and the person won.
 
I leave it up to u guys tow ork out how u want to legislate firearm ownership.

But I know that I think its a real shame that members of your country feel (rightly or wrongly) that they need weapons designed to kill people for protection purposes.

I mean, we have guns in our country.
but in our country the fully automatic weapons and handguns are illegal. Semi automatic weapons are harder tog et a license for. And yes, people do rob things with guns. And they do go on shooting sprees (although our gun crime and accident rates are MUCH lower than yours.

But when someone does that here, they do it with a bolt action rifle (a .22, or a 303), or a shotgun. Kids dont have guns. Most crims dont have guns. Police keep their guns in the boot of their car, and dont need them very often at all. All this ina country with reasonably high crime rates in terms of non gun related crime.

There are also firm rules on how you may store your guns. Both your guns and your amunition are required to be in SEPERATE AND LOCKED CABINETS to avoid accidents/kids getting their hands on ****.

Guns are generally treated like hunting tools. Not toys or weapons.


In saying this, we are not a continental state and our boarder control works relatively well. So these laws have less problems in their enforcement.

This is how we work to keep gun crime down.
 
However relating gun laws to gun crime rates is far from that simple. For instance people often go on about the difference between such rates in America and Britain but they are comparing apples and oranges, they don't really talk about the casual links and ignore the fact that gun violence has gone up in Britain with tighter restrictions.
 
However relating gun laws to gun crime rates is far from that simple. For instance people often go on about the difference between such rates in America and Britain but they are comparing apples and oranges, they don't really talk about the casual links and ignore the fact that gun violence has gone up in Britain with tighter restrictions.

Not to mention the enormous increase of violent crimes and non violent robberies since the "Big Ban".

Anyone wanna post a link to the U.K. commercials that are trying to make a statement about knives? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom