• 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!

Supreme Court fails: Declines to take up lifetime gun rights ban

murder and rape are murder and rape...they are never classified under law as domestic violence.....you aren't an American or you do not understand simple law principals one or the other.

Was it domestic violence when the guy walked into the transportation yard in San Jose and killed people ? Its murder.. not domestic violence.

LOL

do you feel better now?
 
Stalin and his henchman Beria had a process for dealing with political prisoners.
easily done when dealing with disarmed subjects.
 
I see that there are two people here that have basic law comprehension issues or they are absolutely trying to troll...

Sorry, but your so called Conservative court...disagreed that people have infinite gun rights...they don't.
of course they don't. the states have certain police powers that are clearly constitutional-though some are no longer valid after McDOnald. tell us, what powers were the federal government properly granted in terms of interfering with "infinite gun rights"
 
The Supreme Court has failed to do it's duty to restore the rights of our citizens after they have served their time. In this case, it's non-violent felony charges that have caused a lifetime ban on gun ownership. I'm against the permanent disenfranchisement of our citizenry. This also will disproportionately effect minorities. I personally feel that no matter what the time was, if you get released for "serving your time" then you should have everything restored back to you. There shouldn't even be a felony status, imo, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

The SCOTUS failed here. Just to get a taste of the things that could result in your permanent loss of 2A rights, see below:


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, disappointing Second Amendment advocates who hoped a more conservative court would begin to chip away at the restriction.

By not taking the appeals, the nation's highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.
This is great! Are you also agitating to restore voting rights to felons? Just as loudly? Or is it just a gun thing?

Incidentally, no, I don't agree that after being in timeout for a few years with good behavior you should get to equip yourself like you're heading into a war zone, cuz you're not. What is it with this country and playing pretend soldiers? If everyone's weeweee is that small, maybe y'all need to do the stretching surgeries or something, IDK, just seek help.
 
murder and rape are murder and rape...they are never classified under law as domestic violence.....you aren't an American or you do not understand simple law principals one or the other.

Was it domestic violence when the guy walked into the transportation yard in San Jose and killed people ? Its murder.. not domestic violence.
SJ was clearly murder, not domestic violence, and now I can count myself as one of the many who have lost someone they knew to the madness of the American gun cult. I don't understand how this keeps going and going without us saying stop.
 
SJ was clearly murder, not domestic violence, and now I can count myself as one of the many who have lost someone they knew to the madness of the American gun cult. I don't understand how this keeps going and going without us saying stop.
yet they keep trying to diminish because it doesn't bode well for their everyone has a right to a gun argument....especially when those people they are wanting to arm are violent criminal scum.
 
No, I didn't....murder and rape are both non domestic violence....they are examples....

The fact the US Supreme Court did not take it up tells me that they do not believe that gun rights are infinite.

Are you saying that Murder and rape don't exist in a domestic setting ?

I beg to differ

Wives and children are often murdered, are you saying that a wife or child can't be raped ?
 
Are you saying that Murder and rape don't exist in a domestic setting ?

I beg to differ

Wives and children are often murdered, are you saying that a wife or child can't be raped ?
why do you keep making crap up? I am just going to assume at this point that English is not your first language, because you sure as hell do not comprehend it.
 
why do you keep making crap up?

1. Husband Murdering Wife:
"A Minnesota man has been charged with the murder of his wife 11 years after she was shot and killed in their home..."



2.Father Raping Children:
"A woman who was repeatedly raped by her father as a child has described the man as “a devil wearing a mask”...the now 34-year-old woman, who became pregnant by her father when she was 17..."



So it's just "made up crap" huh
Your denial would be pathetic if it wasn't so repugnant

You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
yet they keep trying to diminish because it doesn't bode well for their everyone has a right to a gun argument....especially when those people they are wanting to arm are violent criminal scum.

I was amazed to learn that the madness is relatively new. The NRA used to support sane gun restrictions. Then they decided a take no prisoners approach was better politics, so we get what we have now.
 
1. Husband Murdering Wife:
"A Minnesota man has been charged with the murder of his wife 11 years after she was shot and killed in their home..."



2.Father Raping Children:
"A woman who was repeatedly raped by her father as a child has described the man as “a devil wearing a mask”...the now 34-year-old woman, who became pregnant by her father when she was 17..."



So it's just "made up crap" huh
Your denial would be pathetic if it wasn't so repugnant

You should be ashamed of yourself.
A man just walked into the Publix in Royal Palm and started shooting...he first shot a child and then the grandmother. The child was nearly 2. The man knew neither of them.....is it domestic or not? Was the husband charged with murder or domestic violence? You are confusing legal definitions.....can it get an enhancement? perhaps, but it depends on the state the murder occurs in...but the legal definition and charge is either Murder 1, 2, 3, homicide, etc.....it is not domestic violence that they are charged with when they murder....and it is not domestic violence a father is charged with when he rapes his child...it is rape, sexual assault, child molestation, etc....
 
A man just walked into the Publix in Royal Palm and started shooting...he first shot a child and then the grandmother. The child was nearly 2. The man knew neither of them.....is it domestic or not?

Not

Was the husband charged with murder or domestic violence?

Murder

You are confusing legal definitions

How ?

...it is not domestic violence that they are charged with when they murder

But either in the home or between family members who normally reside together it is "domestic violence"

....and it is not domestic violence a father is charged with when he rapes his child...it is rape, sexual assault, child molestation, etc....

It is, but it is also domestic violence.
 
Not



Murder



How ?



But either in the home or between family members who normally reside together it is "domestic violence"



It is, but it is also domestic violence.
you are claiming they are domestic violence...by law they are not. We are after all talking about law...if someone is murdered, it is no longer relevant if he was an abuser, he is now a murderer...and it does not matter if the person he murdered was known to him...it is still murder under the eyes of the law.
 
So far the Conservative Court is doing an excellent job of ruling across the aisle and should be a good example for all of us.

Too bad it's going to get stacked and slapped with term limits.
Then I guess this doesn't support the liberal idea that the court is too conservative and needs to be packed with more liberal justices.
 
The Supreme Court has failed to do it's duty to restore the rights of our citizens after they have served their time. In this case, it's non-violent felony charges that have caused a lifetime ban on gun ownership. I'm against the permanent disenfranchisement of our citizenry. This also will disproportionately effect minorities. I personally feel that no matter what the time was, if you get released for "serving your time" then you should have everything restored back to you. There shouldn't even be a felony status, imo, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
The SCOTUS failed here. Just to get a taste of the things that could result in your permanent loss of 2A rights, see below:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...sses-three-second-amendment-cases/7283819002/
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, disappointing Second Amendment advocates who hoped a more conservative court would begin to chip away at the restriction.
By not taking the appeals, the nation's highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.

fwiw, it's possible for the Justices to be against the loss of rights after time is served and still be in favor of following the law.

The Court seems to be saying that the proper recourse for folks like me who dislike the impact of their ruling is to take it up with our legislators who wrote that federal law.

The Court prolly just looked at the relevant laws and then found that things were in accord with the rules as they are currently written.
Laws can be changed
 
you are claiming they are domestic violence...by law they are not. We are after all talking about law...if someone is murdered, it is no longer relevant if he was an abuser, he is now a murderer...and it does not matter if the person he murdered was known to him...it is still murder under the eyes of the law.

If a man kills his wife (who still lives with him) it is murder
It is also domestic violence

If a man breaks his wife's jaw, it is assault
It is also domestic violence


There is no such crime as "Domestic Violence" - it is just any violent crime committed in a domestic setting:

"The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction."

 
Then I guess this doesn't support the liberal idea that the court is too conservative and needs to be packed with more liberal justices.
I don't think they'll bother a reasonable court..
 
That's not an answer

I asked what your criteria for "reasonable" is.
Reasonable is when they rule against Trump in the election, and for other liberal rulings recently, that I can't remember.

Good for them, they're fair, and that is what they need to be.
 
Reasonable is when they rule against Trump in the election, and for other liberal rulings recently, that I can't remember.

Good for them, they're fair, and that is what they need to be.

I'll take that criteria for "reasonable".
 
The Supreme Court has failed to do it's duty to restore the rights of our citizens after they have served their time. In this case, it's non-violent felony charges that have caused a lifetime ban on gun ownership. I'm against the permanent disenfranchisement of our citizenry. This also will disproportionately effect minorities. I personally feel that no matter what the time was, if you get released for "serving your time" then you should have everything restored back to you. There shouldn't even be a felony status, imo, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

The SCOTUS failed here. Just to get a taste of the things that could result in your permanent loss of 2A rights, see below:


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, disappointing Second Amendment advocates who hoped a more conservative court would begin to chip away at the restriction.

By not taking the appeals, the nation's highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.
Well they also struck down the faithless elector, which was a key feature of the electoral college.

But I do agree that once someone has completed their punishment in full, then the full of their rights must again be recognized by the government.
 
Well they also struck down the faithless elector, which was a key feature of the electoral college.

But I do agree that once someone has completed their punishment in full, then the full of their rights must again be recognized by the government.

Well perhaps the right to gun might be an exception.
 
Back
Top Bottom