• 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!

Something I noticed about a lot of adamant anti-2nd amendment folks.

1st Amendment. 4th Amendment.
libel, slander, time place and manner of worship

exigent circumstances, plain view, someone other than you giving permission to search (roommate for example)


Try again?
 
libel, slander, time place and manner of worship

exigent circumstances, plain view, someone other than you giving permission to search (roommate for example)


Try again?
You aren't even close to the restrictions on firearms.

Felons have both 1st and 4th Amendment protections.
Everyone retains the ability to libel or slander; it's only when someone commits a crime with the available tools that the government gets involved. Cut a shotgun down to a 17" barrel and see what happens. Convert a rifle into a machine gun and see what happens. Neither of those actions hurt anyone in and of themselves.
Even legal guns require permission from the government to buy one from a dealer. The government needs permission to violate your 4th Amendment protections.
 
You aren't even close to the restrictions on firearms.

Felons have both 1st and 4th Amendment protections.
Everyone retains the ability to libel or slander; it's only when someone commits a crime with the available tools that the government gets involved. Cut a shotgun down to a 17" barrel and see what happens. Convert a rifle into a machine gun and see what happens. Neither of those actions hurt anyone in and of themselves.
Even legal guns require permission from the government to buy one from a dealer. The government needs permission to violate your 4th Amendment protections.
How does requiring a license to buy a gun restrict the 2nd Amendment? By preventing those that have reasons not to own a firearm from buying one? Sorry, felons can have guns according to the Constitution, state laws prevent them. Take that one up in the states (I won't). Both of your examples are violations of law, are you in favor of eliminating those restrictions?
 
Right wingers are teh one anti-2nd amendment, conveniently leaving out militia and well regulated

The Supreme Court already addresses that and doesn't need to be added.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,”
 
How does requiring a license to buy a gun restrict the 2nd Amendment?
How does buying an ID restrict the right to vote? How does paying a poll tax restrict the right to vote?

See Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton for how SCOTUS views fees to exercise rights.

By preventing those that have reasons not to own a firearm from buying one? Sorry, felons can have guns according to the Constitution, state laws prevent them.

Federal law restricts felons, not just state laws. Felons though can still exercise the rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments.

Take that one up in the states (I won't). Both of your examples are violations of law, are you in favor of eliminating those restrictions?
I'm noting that those restrictions exist.

What harm is actually caused by my owning a shotgun with a 17" barrel without a tax stamp? Hate speech is protected speech, and that hurts feelings every time it's used.
 
How does requiring a license to buy a gun restrict the 2nd Amendment? By preventing those that have reasons not to own a firearm from buying one? Sorry, felons can have guns according to the Constitution, state laws prevent them. Take that one up in the states (I won't). Both of your examples are violations of law, are you in favor of eliminating those restrictions?

You've apparently never bought a gun at a dealer. Felons are prohibited, along with people who have convicted of serious misdemeanors, those subject to restraining orders, etc. I don't really have a problem with that. In fact, I support extending those prohibitions to motor vehicles.
 
WTF are you talking about? Millions of people live perfectly normal lives under totalitarian dictators every day of the week.

Like who ?
And what's your criteria for "normal" in this context ?

Get a grip. It will end democracy not the planet earth.

Yet millions of people have died to protect democracy over the years.
 
Like who ?
And what's your criteria for "normal" in this context ?



Yet millions of people have died to protect democracy over the years.

And millions have died fighting for thugs.
Look at the Trumpists and the mantra we hear from their smug, uneducated mouths, "locked and loaded for Trump." Deploarable and misguided as they are, they will fight to end democracy.
 
And millions have died fighting for thugs.

Are you suggesting their motivations are similar or as honorable ?

Look at the Trumpists and the mantra we hear from their smug, uneducated mouths, "locked and loaded for Trump." Deploarable and misguided as they are, they will fight to end democracy.

Absolutely they will.
 
And millions have died fighting for thugs.
Look at the Trumpists and the mantra we hear from their smug, uneducated mouths, "locked and loaded for Trump." Deploarable and misguided as they are, they will fight to end democracy.
are you able to make a post without infecting it with your stage IV TDS? Tell us, what did Trump do to you to cause this level of obsessive hatred?
 
Are you suggesting their motivations are similar or as honorable ?

Just answering your question. The banner of honor is hung on the winner not on your nor my ideas of rightness.
 
Just answering your question. The banner of honor is hung on the winner not on your nor my ideas of rightness.

No, the banner of "honor" is not claimed by the winner - not since history started to be recorded from both sides perspective

But back to your assertion
You said:
...millions of people live perfectly normal lives under totalitarian dictators every day of the week.

You failed to identify these 'millions" of people
Nor explain what your criteria is for "normal".

Can you do so now please ?
 
No, the banner of "honor" is not claimed by the winner - not since history started to be recorded from both sides perspective.

You need a refesher course. Seriously.
This is not arguable.
 
You need a refesher course. Seriously.
This is not arguable.

Really ?

Who are these "winners" you say claim the "banner of honor" ?

But yet again, you dodge. You said:
...millions of people live perfectly normal lives under totalitarian dictators every day of the week.

You refuse to identify these 'millions" of people
Nor explain what your criteria is for "normal".

Can you do so now please ?
 
Really ?

Who are these "winners" you say claim the "banner of honor" ?

But yet again, you dodge. You said:


You refuse to identify these 'millions" of people
Nor explain what your criteria is for "normal".

Can you do so now please ?

Lol, you want a list of a million individuals? Lol published here? Well I would be it would crash the site and I'd get tossed and you would not want that.
Dude, put on your thinking cap. You are farrrrrrrrr to "indoctrinated."

People have living under every kind of government imaginable and they make the best of it..

And yeah, the victors write history. Who do you think does? And I assure you, they do not write that they were the bad guys.

Come on man, open your eyes.
 
Lol, you want a list of a million individuals?

No, you can just list the groups/armies/countries they belonged to
Should be fairly simple to do.

People have living under every kind of government imaginable and they make the best of it.

"Making the best" of the political regime you live under is not "normal"
At least not my criteria for "normal"
And definitely not a "normality" I would ever want

And yeah, the victors write history. Who do you think does? And I assure you, they do not write that they were the bad guys.

They used to in days long gone by, when literacy levels were so low only a fraction of people could read and write. Not anymore though - the days of the winners writing history disappeared centuries ago.

Come on man, open your eyes.

Nope, you open yours

Jews living in Nazi Germany might find it "normal", to be found by the Gestapo and dragged off to be gassed to death - but that would be abnormal for anyone outside of Nazi influence
And definitely not desirable for anyone

I remember a radio debate back in the 80's when children in Northern Ireland were trying to say that despite all the bombs/shootings/security and religious segregation, in Ulster at the time, they could still have a "normal" childhood
One boy in the debate admitted all the terrorism and severe security they endured, but said it was "normal" for them
The debate host countered that while that may be true, it wasn't "normal" for anyone else in the UK, much less anyone else in the developed world

You have to come up with a far better criteria for "normal" than that.
 
The Supreme Court already addresses that and doesn't need to be added.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,”

They got it wrong.
 
No, you can just list the groups/armies/countries they belonged to
Should be fairly simple to do.



"Making the best" of the political regime you live under is not "normal"
At least not my criteria for "normal"
And definitely not a "normality" I would ever want



They used to in days long gone by, when literacy levels were so low only a fraction of people could read and write. Not anymore though - the days of the winners writing history disappeared centuries ago.



Nope, you open yours

Jews living in Nazi Germany might find it "normal", to be found by the Gestapo and dragged off to be gassed to death - but that would be abnormal for anyone outside of Nazi influence
And definitely not desirable for anyone

I remember a radio debate back in the 80's when children in Northern Ireland were trying to say that despite all the bombs/shootings/security and religious segregation, in Ulster at the time, they could still have a "normal" childhood
One boy in the debate admitted all the terrorism and severe security they endured, but said it was "normal" for them
The debate host countered that while that may be true, it wasn't "normal" for anyone else in the UK, much less anyone else in the developed world

You have to come up with a far better criteria for "normal" than that.

you are not objective in the least.

Silly really.

Peace
 
They got it wrong.

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.



The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..




In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The decision recognized the right of two former slaves to keep a bear arms, two men who were not in the militia, would not have been allowed to be in the militia, in a state where the militia had been disbanded.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.


The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.


In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."


The claim that Heller changed the interpretation of the right protected by the Second Amendment from a collective to an individual viewpoint simply has no merit.
 
you are not objective in the least.

Silly really.

Peace

LOL

There is an old adage among lawyers that says, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

You just pounded the table

I accept your surrender.
 
LOL

There is an old adage among lawyers that says, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

You just pounded the table

I accept your surrender.
Ending with a logical fallacy is a fail every time.

Just an FYI

Tell your lawyer friend I said so.

peace
 
Ending with a logical fallacy is a fail every time.

Just an FYI

Tell your lawyer friend I said so.

peace

Again you offer nothing but pounding the table.

The "logical fallacy" is a apparent as anything resembling an argument from you

You surrender by default.
 
Back
Top Bottom