• 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!

The intellectual dishonesty of the Incrementalists [W:79]

Chris - I am retiring for the evening. You think about this and give me your firm answer in the morning or anytime on Sunday.

Several people have posted on your side so perhaps you can get them to help with your end of the stake. Of course, they will not put their existence here on the line - that will be only you on your end of the bet and me on mine.

:rofl Are you for real?
 
It serves the purpose of defending my claim when another refused to accept its validity.

Why is it important for you to defend your claim here, and in that way? This is a discussion forum. Most people have no idea about who any of the other members really are, nor is that necessary for debate. Merely state your credentials as I and others do, then show if you have the knowledge and capability of using it to back the claims up. Who cares if others believe you or not.

Remember, you can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. Live with it. :)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Oh, I'm putting a stop to this right now. There will be no betting in regards to one's membership here. You folks have mucked up this thread long enough with this crap. You want to talk about it, do it via PM. I hope that's clear.

All this personal stuff stops now.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Oh, and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will DP be the arbiter of any kind of bet in any kind of official capacity. Take it elsewhere.
 
Wrong forum!
 
Last edited:
It is simply the incremental approach to "gun control". With crime rates, including crime committed with guns, steadily dropping they will try to establish "reasonable restrictions" and then assert that those restrictions on guns made the crime rate drop, justifying even stricter "reasonable restrictions".

Note that placing any restrictions, including presenting a valid, state issued, photo ID are said to be a "discriminatory burden" when applied to the right to vote (only once and only as yourself in a given election). These same restrictions (plus many more) are said to be absolutely necessary to buy guns/ammo and are somehow no longer a "discriminatory burden".

Much like the NY laws limitting sode pop serving sizes, restrictions on the number of rounds in a single magazine are simply introducing a hassle factor. You may still purchase/carry all of the soda pop or ammo that you desire, it simply must be in several smaller containers to be considered legal in certain libtard controlled states.

If your name is haymarket, a "hassle factor" does not mean your 2nd Amendment right has been infringed. On the contrary, you still get your gun, AFTER YOU'VE BEEN HASSLED TO DEATH (that is if you can afford the hassles, women and the poor highest affected). The problem with this is that none of the "common sense" hassles have been shown to reduce crime at all.
 
If your name is haymarket, a "hassle factor" does not mean your 2nd Amendment right has been infringed. On the contrary, you still get your gun, AFTER YOU'VE BEEN HASSLED TO DEATH (that is if you can afford the hassles, women and the poor highest affected). The problem with this is that none of the "common sense" hassles have been shown to reduce crime at all.

...Do bullets count as hassles?
 
The SCOTUS has outlined the infringments on the right to bear arms that are acceptable. Some excerpts from District of Columbia v. Heller:



There you go. Now, define "dangerous and unusual."

Yet another reson Heller is such a poorly written opinion is dicta that contradict the holding. Since Heller made gun ownership a fundamental right, that certainly does cast doubt on whether gun prohibitions on the mentally ill or in sensitive places or what have you are permissible. This is all part of the problem with the bull**** reasoning of Scalia's opinion. It's going to be a long time before the results of Heller are hashed out, and since it is such a piss poor piece of writing it very well could be that a lot of it gets rolled back.
 
Yet another reson Heller is such a poorly written opinion is dicta that contradict the holding. Since Heller made gun ownership a fundamental right, that certainly does cast doubt on whether gun prohibitions on the mentally ill or in sensitive places or what have you are permissible. This is all part of the problem with the bull**** reasoning of Scalia's opinion. It's going to be a long time before the results of Heller are hashed out, and since it is such a piss poor piece of writing it very well could be that a lot of it gets rolled back.

He did leave the opinion somewhat vague and open to interpretation, didn't he? What is "unusual and dangerous?" Under that definition, practically any arms limitation is acceptable.
 
He did leave the opinion somewhat vague and open to interpretation, didn't he? What is "unusual and dangerous?" Under that definition, practically any arms limitation is acceptable.

I love the results of Heller, I just wish it had a firmer foundation. That way it would be harder to pivot away from the fundamental right to gun ownership. Scalia was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to balance all this conflicting stuff, he wanted to solidify popular opinion about what the second amendment did, and he wanted to craft an originalist historical account for it, yet he also wanted to maintain a status quo of gun restrictions that really cannot stand if gun ownership is a FUNDAMENTAL right.

So what we've got is sloppy and unsatisfactory precedent that will inevitably get walked back when the court tips more to the left.
 
I love the results of Heller, I just wish it had a firmer foundation. That way it would be harder to pivot away from the fundamental right to gun ownership. Scalia was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to balance all this conflicting stuff, he wanted to solidify popular opinion about what the second amendment did, and he wanted to craft an originalist historical account for it, yet he also wanted to maintain a status quo of gun restrictions that really cannot stand if gun ownership is a FUNDAMENTAL right.

So what we've got is sloppy and unsatisfactory precedent that will inevitably get walked back when the court tips more to the left.

that's an interesting comment coming from someone who claims gun ownership is irrational and dangerous
 
The SCOTUS has outlined the infringments on the right to bear arms that are acceptable.

There you go. Now, define "dangerous and unusual."

That is easy.

"Dangerous and unusual" is a descriptor of arms that fail the protection criteria established by SCOTUS of which "in common use" is just one.

The others are whether the arm is of the type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment (of a type usually employed in civilized warfare) and/or can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

If the arm fails all those tests, then and only then can the government argue that a power to dictate to the private citizen as to the possession and use of that arm, should be afforded to government.

IOW, "dangerous and unusual" is the scraps on the floor that the government gets to sweep up and crib together into a pleading for power . . . it is not a position that the government gets to set-out at the beginning just because their statist authoritarian leftists can't contemplate why someone 'needs" such an arm.
 
Yet another reson Heller is such a poorly written opinion is dicta that contradict the holding.

Heller did not break any new ground, it did not rework or upset any previous SCOTUS decisions on the right to arms or the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia did engage in an unnecessary textual analysis of the Amendment; Part II could (should) have been excluded. Heller should have been three pages grounded simply in the longstanding SCOTUS opinion on the nature and origin of the right to arms, e.g., pre-existing, not granted thus not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Constitution to exist -- thus a parsing / textual examination is utterly pointless and without any benefit whatsoever.

Since Heller made gun ownership a fundamental right, that certainly does cast doubt on whether gun prohibitions on the mentally ill or in sensitive places or what have you are permissible.

Wrong.

The set-up for the "fundamental right" determination was set-out by Scalia in Heller, but was concluded and became the opinion of the Court in McDonald so Alito needs to be added to your naughty list (if he wasn't there already).


". . . we now turn directly to the question whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, . . .

Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. . . ."




If you are mystified by what this "fundamental right" status means for the disablement of the right to arms for prohibited persons, perhaps you should read Lewis, the Court laid out their reasoning (while acknowledging the right to arms had some degree of fundamental status) back in 1980, "This Court has recognized repeatedly that a legislature constitutionally may prohibit a convicted felon from engaging in activities far more fundamental than the possession of a firearm....".

Why in your mind must the right to arms undergo such unequal segregation?

This is all part of the problem with the bull**** reasoning of Scalia's opinion.

Well, if your conclusion that Heller's reasoning is bull**** is formed from your incorrect knowledge and understanding of the case's actual reasoning and conclusions, then perhaps it's just your conclusion that is bull****?

It's going to be a long time before the results of Heller are hashed out, and since it is such a piss poor piece of writing it very well could be that a lot of it gets rolled back.

Wishful thinking grounded in incorrect understanding is not a convincing argument nor is it an enviable debate position.
 
I love the results of Heller, I just wish it had a firmer foundation. That way it would be harder to pivot away from the fundamental right to gun ownership. Scalia was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to balance all this conflicting stuff, he wanted to solidify popular opinion about what the second amendment did, and he wanted to craft an originalist historical account for it, yet he also wanted to maintain a status quo of gun restrictions that really cannot stand if gun ownership is a FUNDAMENTAL right.

So what we've got is sloppy and unsatisfactory precedent that will inevitably get walked back when the court tips more to the left.

Heller did not establish precedent, it rested on it to invalidate lower court inventions.

In actual action, Heller invalidated Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) upon which dozens of lower federal court and state court rulings rest, that affirmed hundreds if not thousands of gun control laws using the illegitimate "collective right" reasoning of Tot and Cases.

Heller works to call into question every case decided upon the "state's right" and/or "militia right" theories . . .
 
Heller did not establish precedent, it rested on it to invalidate lower court inventions.

In actual action, Heller invalidated Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) upon which dozens of lower federal court and state court rulings rest, that affirmed hundreds if not thousands of gun control laws using the illegitimate "collective right" reasoning of Tot and Cases.

Heller works to call into question every case decided upon the "state's right" and/or "militia right" theories . . .

and Stevens main rant against the majority opinion was his support for poorly reasoned (often based on a bastardization of Cruikshank circuit decisions that were slapped around by Scalia
 
Back
Top Bottom