• 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!

Sandy Hook families reach $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington

Rich2018 said:
You actually WANT people to break the law...

What happened to RW mantra of "rule of law" ?

Seem your version of Republicanism is mob rule


On the left, we follow peaceful protest and working to change the law...you obviously favor actions like the J6 insurrection riot.
Click to expand...

Your position is that Rosa Parks should have just wrote a stern letter?
 
Rucker61 said:
According to Heller,

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. "

States can limit the carrying of firearms in schools Constitutionally; they don't have the power to expand that prohibition into the surrounding neighborhood. See US v Lopez.
Click to expand...

"...laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools..."

Whomever designated, teachers et al, allowed to carry. Janitors.
 
bluesmoke said:
"...laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools..."

Whomever designated, teachers et al, allowed to carry. Janitors.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is here with this sentence fragment.
 

Rucker61 said:
Doesn't every gun crime in a gun free zone provide evidence that gun free zones don't work?
Click to expand...

It would be evidence even if you put that bean into an empty jar compared to a jar of 100 beans of gun crimes in non-gun free zones. What is your evidence that one is more or less than the other?
 
bluesmoke said:
It would be evidence even if you put that bean into an empty jar compared to a jar of 100 beans of gun crimes in non-gun free zones. What is your evidence that one is more or less than the other?
Click to expand...
Try again. That response wasn't parsable either.
 
TurtleDude said:
England and Australia both used one incident each to engage in a collective bed wetting
Click to expand...

And Canada...but be honest, if the entire world, except the USA banned guns, you wouldn't think that was any reason for the USA to do so as well.

So why do you mention what the UK and Australia did ?
 
Rich2018 said:
And Canada...but be honest, if the entire world, except the USA banned guns, you wouldn't think that was any reason for the USA to do so as well.

So why do you mention what the UK and Australia did ?
Click to expand...
because it was pertinent to the point I was making. One incident led to bed wetting
 
TurtleDude said:
because it was pertinent to the point I was making. One incident led to bed wetting
Click to expand...

Pertinent huh ?

Then how many incidents should it take, for gun control to be enacted ?

You will say any number would be "bed wetting". So invalidating your point.
 
Rich2018 said:
Pertinent huh ?

Then how many incidents should it take, for gun control to be enacted ?

You will say any number would be "bed wetting". So invalidating your point.
Click to expand...
gun control -as liberals want-is never a proper response to an incident
 
TurtleDude said:
gun control -as liberals want-is never a proper response to an incident
Click to expand...

Like the imposition of a (lower) speed limit is never the proper response to a road traffic accident ?

But you're not being honest you don't mean just one incident, you would think the same if there were 100 incidents, or 1,000 or 1,000,000.
 
Rich2018 said:
Like the imposition of a (lower) speed limit is never the proper response to a road traffic accident ?

But you're not being honest you don't mean just one incident, you would think the same if there were 100 incidents, or 1,000 or 1,000,000.
Click to expand...
There were many accidents on highways yesterday, and speed limits were not lowered today in response.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
It failed miserably in Parkland School shooting. Not saying to arm teachers nessicarily. But if a few teachers want to be armed for such an attack with training that meets or exceeds police officer training in use of firearms should be allowed.
Click to expand...

Why did LEO fail at Parkland and what would make teachers with the same training succeed, instead?
 
bluesmoke said:
Why did LEO fail at Parkland and what would make teachers with the same training succeed, instead?
Click to expand...
That particular individual chose not to enter the building. The teachers are already in the building and won't have that same option.
 
Rucker61 said:
That particular individual chose not to enter the building. The teachers are already in the building and won't have that same option.
Click to expand...

The teachers that were outside the building, would have the same options
The teachers inside the building would have the option to flee outside the building.
 
Rich2018 said:
The teachers that were outside the building, would have the same options
The teachers inside the building would have the option to flee outside the building.
Click to expand...
No, you were just wrong in trying to make a point with your rhetorical question, and now you're in a corner desperately trying to scratch out a rabbit hole.
 
Rucker61 said:
Could you provide support for those bans, Constitutionally? Debate why those bans would be Constitutional.
Click to expand...

In Heller:

"Banning certain types of guns. The Second Amendment does not protect guns that are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. (The Court endorsed the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'")

The Right to Carry a Gun in Public

What does the Supreme Court say about the Second Amendment right to carry a gun in public? Learn how the Bruen decision has impacted gun regulations.
www.nolo.com www.nolo.com

Presumption of constitutionality and constitutional construction:

"In constitutional law, the presumption of constitutionality is the legal principle that the judiciary should presume statutes enacted by the legislature to be constitutional, unless the law is clearly unconstitutional or a fundamental right is implicated."

Presumption of constitutionality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

That which Congress, aka state legislatures, pass as law stands as constitutional unless ruled otherwise by the courts.

What I claimed stands as stated, word for word.
 
bluesmoke said:
In Heller:

"Banning certain types of guns. The Second Amendment does not protect guns that are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. (The Court endorsed the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'")

The Right to Carry a Gun in Public

What does the Supreme Court say about the Second Amendment right to carry a gun in public? Learn how the Bruen decision has impacted gun regulations.
www.nolo.com www.nolo.com

Presumption of constitutionality and constitutional construction:

"In constitutional law, the presumption of constitutionality is the legal principle that the judiciary should presume statutes enacted by the legislature to be constitutional, unless the law is clearly unconstitutional or a fundamental right is implicated."

Presumption of constitutionality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

That which Congress, aka state legislatures, pass as law stands as constitutional unless ruled otherwise by the courts.

What I claimed stands as stated, word for word.
Click to expand...
Caetano v Massachusetts is newer than Heller, and with Heller affirms that the 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes. Given McDonald, any state law that restricts any bearable arm in common use for lawful purposes is unconstitutional.

What firearms currently on the market aren't bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom