• 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!

Repealing the 2nd

Soopairik said:
Read the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I did and I fail to see your point. tell us what your claim is so I can destroy it because the constitution

1) has not even a HINT of a federal power to ban or restrict what sort of firearms private citizens can own

2) and thus the NINTH AND TENTH amendments clearly ban any such laws

3) and the second amendment-like the other parts of the BOR was intended to guarantee a right that existed before the government was formed and THUS cannot POSSIBLY require membership is an organization under the CONTROL of that new government to VEST
 
TurtleDude said:
I did and I fail to see your point. tell us what your claim is so I can destroy it because the constitution

1) has not even a HINT of a federal power to ban or restrict what sort of firearms private citizens can own

2) and thus the NINTH AND TENTH amendments clearly ban any such laws

3) and the second amendment-like the other parts of the BOR was intended to guarantee a right that existed before the government was formed and THUS cannot POSSIBLY require membership is an organization under the CONTROL of that new government to VEST
Click to expand...

It also doesn't hint I can burn down houses. Oh, it doesn't explicitly tell me, so I can do it! Loopholes.
 
Soopairik said:
It also doesn't hint I can burn down houses. Oh, it doesn't explicitly tell me, so I can do it! Loopholes.
Click to expand...

Owning a firearm is not the same as committing arson.
 
Soopairik said:
It also doesn't hint I can burn down houses. Oh, it doesn't explicitly tell me, so I can do it! Loopholes.
Click to expand...

you really are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the constitution

we have a federal system. stuff like arson is prohibited by state laws. as is rape, burglary, buggering someone else's livestock, speeding, driving under the influence, or stealing hubcaps off of cars.
 
Soopairik said:
Nonetheless, still a loophole.
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. you seem unable to understand that the federal government is one of limited powers and that because the federal government doesn't criminalize things that don't affect interstate commerce doesn't mean there is a loophole
 
Soopairik said:
Nonetheless, still a loophole.
Click to expand...

One is a passive action, the other is an active action. Shooting up a house is analogous to burning down a house; owning a gun is analogous to owning gasoline and matches. Owning a gun or owning gasoline is not a problem.
 
Rucker61 said:
One is a passive action, the other is an active action. Shooting up a house is analogous to burning down a house; owning a gun is analogous to owning gasoline and matches. Owning a gun or owning gasoline is not a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying one is worse than the other. The point was that they're both loopholes meant to satisfy a person's own political agenda.
 
Soopairik said:
I'm not saying one is worse than the other. The point was that they're both loopholes meant to satisfy a person's own political agenda.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how owning a firearm in accordance with the Constitution is a loophole?

Can you explain how owning gasoline is a loophole?
 
Rucker61 said:
Can you explain how owning a firearm in accordance with the Constitution is a loophole?

Can you explain how owning gasoline is a loophole?
Click to expand...

Doesn't explicitly say so in the Constitution for gasoline, and owning a firearm is allowed, but no for the reasons you thought.
 
Soopairik said:
Doesn't explicitly say so in the Constitution for gasoline, and owning a firearm is allowed, but no for the reasons you thought.
Click to expand...

have you ever figured out that the federal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. it cannot criminalize everything that is bad. That is because it has to have the proper jurisdiction

banks that are federally insured that are robbed for example

Kidnapping was made a federal crime after the lindbergh kidnapping due to the fact that state lines are usually crossed. using the mail to further fraud or a drug conspiracy is a federal crime. arson for the most part is not. ITS NOT A LOOPHOLE
 
Soopairik said:
Doesn't explicitly say so in the Constitution for gasoline, and owning a firearm is allowed, but no for the reasons you thought.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the Constitution at all. Not one little bit.

The Constitution doesn't allow me to own a gun.
 
TurtleDude said:
have you ever figured out that the federal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. it cannot criminalize everything that is bad. That is because it has to have the proper jurisdiction

banks that are federally insured that are robbed for example

Kidnapping was made a federal crime after the lindbergh kidnapping due to the fact that state lines are usually crossed. using the mail to further fraud or a drug conspiracy is a federal crime. arson for the most part is not. ITS NOT A LOOPHOLE
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "loophole".
 
Rucker61 said:
He doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "loophole".
Click to expand...

it seems endemic with the gun banners and gun restrictionists. their misunderstanding of the brady bill was bad enough. This one really takes the cake
 
TurtleDude said:
it seems endemic with the gun banners and gun restrictionists. their misunderstanding of the brady bill was bad enough. This one really takes the cake
Click to expand...

This one isn't afraid to combat a guy who resorts to fascist remarks when he can't think of anything else to say.
 
Soopairik said:
This one isn't afraid to combat a guy who resorts to fascist remarks when he can't think of anything else to say.
Click to expand...

Afraid, evidently not; competent to do so effectively, certainly not.
 
Soopairik said:
This one isn't afraid to combat a guy who resorts to fascist remarks when he can't think of anything else to say.
Click to expand...

trying to disarm millions of honest citizens has fascist written all over it
 
Soopairik said:
Godwin's Law
Click to expand...

you don't even know what the means but the is consistent with what your posts demonstrate you don't know about guns. so it makes sense
 
Soopairik said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

an Internet adage that asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds.

fascism is not Hitler and has nothing to do with Godwin's law

have you figured out why a pistol grip makes a semi auto weapon too dangerous for mere mortals to own?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom