• 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 new face of the Second Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then provide the law which says just that.

here was your statement



Lets see that in law - and DO NOT GIVE ME THE SECOND AMENDMENT because that is NOT what it says either.

I don't need a law to says that. That's not how our constitution and our legal system works.

Under our constitution, I have rights and powers that are not specifically given to the states or the federal government.

by the way.. the second amendment does protect those rights.

this has all been explained to you over and over again... its been proven from historical references to modern day supreme court cases. You simply don't want to acknowledge that fact.
 
That is merely a cheap shot and provides us with nothing specific.

Again, link to one of those posts where I was "debunked". You cannot do it as it never happened.

Nope.. there is no need to rehash old arguments that you have repeatedly lost...
 
So what? Thousands do and have proven it by voting for laws with regulations over firearms getting those laws passed into law with majorities at local, state and national levels.

so? Whats your point. No one is saying that firearms cannot be regulated. Heck..Turtledude recognizes the power of the government to regulate firearms... there is no way in hell he is advocating that felons in prison should be given firearms as a constitutional right.. or that 6 year olds should be able to walk into a walmart and purchase a glock.

Your argument is a strawman argument that you have created only for yourself.

Certainly firearms can be regulated... that still means that I have the right to own ANY firearm I wish.
 
Nope.. there is no need to rehash old arguments that you have repeatedly lost...

Just as I stated - you re impotent to back up your boasts with any links.
 
Certainly firearms can be regulated... that still means that I have the right to own ANY firearm I wish.

States have legally prohibited people from owning certain firearms. That reality negates and proves false your claim.
 
I don't need a law to says that. That's not how our constitution and our legal system works.

As I suspected - you have nothing to show other than your own verbage.
 
States have legally prohibited people from owning certain firearms. That reality negates and proves false your claim.

No.. states have legally prohibited SOME people from legally owning firearms..

States have unconstitutionally prohibited people from owning certain firearms. The fact that they have done so neither negates nor proves false my claim. At one time, states could deny my wife and I the right to be married. That does not mean that I didn't, nor now do have the right to choose which consenting adult I wish to marry.
 
As I suspected - you have nothing to show other than your own verbage.

As I know.. you don't understand how the constitution and our legal system works.
 
Nope... sorry but your "quote me game".. simply doesn't play...

In debate QUOTE ME is not a game - it is the basis of integrity, honesty and accuracy.
 
As I know.. you don't understand how the constitution and our legal system works.

Again - I see the personal insult but I do not see any evidence for your claim.
 
No.. states have legally prohibited SOME people from legally owning firearms..

States have unconstitutionally prohibited people from owning certain firearms. The fact that they have done so neither negates nor proves false my claim. At one time, states could deny my wife and I the right to be married. That does not mean that I didn't, nor now do have the right to choose which consenting adult I wish to marry.

You just admitted that people have been prohibited from owning certain firearms. That proves your statement about you can own any firearm you wish is false.

Or are you saying you have the right to be a criminal and break the law?
 
Gun industry's helping hand triggers a surge in college shooting teams


The clubs are thriving at a diverse range of schools - Harvard, Maryland, Yale, George Mason and MIT - and leading some students to change their perceptions about guns.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — In between completing problem sets, writing code, organizing hackathons, worrying about internships and building solar cars,a group of MIT students make their way to the athletic center, where they stand side-by-side, load their guns and fire away.
They are majoring in biological engineering, brain and cognitive sciences, aeronautics, mechanical engineering, computer science and nuclear science. Before arriving at MIT, nearly all of them had never touched a gun or even seen one that wasn’t on TV.
“Which is strange because I’m from Texas,” said Nick McCoy, wearing a *T-shirt advertising his dorm and getting ready to shoot.
McCoy is one of the brainiacs on MIT’s pistol and rifle teams, which, like other college shooting teams, have benefited from the largesse of gun industry money and become so popular that they often turn students away. Teams are thriving at a diverse range of schools: Yale, Harvard, the University of Maryland, George *Mason University, and even smaller schools such as Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania and Connors State College in Oklahoma.
“We literally have way more students interested than we can handle,” said Steve Goldstein, one of MIT’s pistol coaches. . . .

Once the Boogie Man has been unmasked, even liberals realize their stupidity. Good find.
 
That speaks volumes about what you have opted to "see".

I am reminded of the words of Paul Simon - "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Your comment about what you have seen fits that perfectly.

It's as plain as day and night. Most Lefties just go bonkers on the subject.
 
So just let them carry concealed. Problem solved.
That's what I've always said.

So they shouldn't OC so that they can keep the ability to OC which they should never do? You make no sense.
Hey, I didn't engage in that practice, or make any laws, just enforced them. The liberals in Calif. just screw everyone anyway. If it doesn't make any sense to you...go to Sacramento and protest.
 
gun banners are one of two camps-ignorant/unaware of reality or dishonest. no one who actually pushes for gun restrictions believe that such restrictions are narrowly tailored to deter criminal activity
Agreed!

And what about the ability of the legislature to determine places where no guns are allowed by the public?
What about it? Are you siding with their stupidity now?
 
Your carefully crafted position seems to have it all covered for you Turtle. It permits you to say they are either stupid or lying. In either case you come out pretending to be superior.
It appears to me ...................that he is. At least he knows the enemy and logically processes it. ;)

That ability should be trimmed. Each location should face Strict Scrutiny and demonstrate a bonafide need to restrict gun possession. Given that all school shootings have occurred in gun free zones, there's a mandate to remove gun free zones.
And well there should be.
I have maintained for years that every school shooting in the US, could have been prevented, stopped or at least minimized by an armed person with a gun.
At Virginia Tech in '07, many lives could have been saved had some decent students had a gun. As it turned out, 30 of them became victims....and no one saved anyone that day!

It is generally understood that such restrictions are tailored to deter legal activity.
Wrongfully understood...I'll give ya that.

I think the proposal which makes the most sense was one advocated by the NRA in the wake of the Newtown slayings. Place a full time professional person complete with firearm in every school in America. I support that.
A good idea to some degree, but not the best....unless that person is in plain clothes and carries his gun concealed at all times. Have any idea at all why I say that?
Then..........there is the added cost and that could really add up.

not by anyone who actually understands the issue
criminals cannot own any weapons. so limits on magazines or how many guns you can buy only target honest people. same with "assault weapon" bans. at best these laws are trickle down nonsense-if you ban 100000 honest people from owning an "assault weapon" that might delay 10 stupid criminals from obtaining one.
And that doesn't even work in Oregon, because it has to go thru the State Police first and they rearely prosecute anyone who they catch violating the law.

Concealed carry on school ground is illegal in that state. Open carry is the only legal option. Why are you encouraging people to brake the law?
I'm not. It's not illegal here. Anyone with a a CHL can carry concealed on any campus in the State of Oregon. A common sense approach.
 
Last edited:
It can't hurt the 2nd Amendment, but it sure can negatively impact gun owners.

They did this s**t in Calif. a few years ago and the Legislature went in and removed the Open Carry clause in Calif. law.
The dummies shot themselves in the foot.
In Calif. it's illegal to Open Carry and Concealed Carry is very limited!

California would have already done that one way or another.As far as the liberal anti-2nd amendment loony politicians and those vote for them in Commie-fornia are concerned the 2nd amendment is written on toilet paper and thus they wipe their ass with it.
 
It can't hurt the 2nd Amendment, but it sure can negatively impact gun owners.

They did this s**t in Calif. a few years ago and the Legislature went in and removed the Open Carry clause in Calif. law.
The dummies shot themselves in the foot.
In Calif. it's illegal to Open Carry and Concealed Carry is very limited!
So they shouldn't OC so that they can keep the ability to OC which they should never do? You make no sense.
Please explain yourself. What's the point of keeping the right if you're never going to use it?
 
I'm not. It's not illegal here. Anyone with a a CHL can carry concealed on any campus in the State of Oregon. A common sense approach.
OP's story doesn't take place in Oregon. Pay attention.
 
I agree with you. I was born in 49 and came of age in the Sixties which were a terrible time for polarization and division. I was hoping those days were behind us as a nation and as a people.

Why do you think they are returning?

Yep...that's when we saw Communists infiltrate the colleges and universities...and a bunch of dumb kids protested stuff they had no knowledge of...and the Black Panther Party was lawless and had an excuse for all their criminal action.
Then of course there was the SLA and the kidnapping of Patty Hearst.
No reason at all for good folks not to be opposed and divided over all that crapola.

Why are they returning? Because we have a racist and divisive president who apparently subscribes to the destruction of America.
 
This is the cowardly underlying dishonesty of the gun cravens.

They say (with a wide-eyed, innocent facial expression) "All we want is COMMON SENSE. All we want are BACKGROUND CHECKS."

What they MEAN is that they want a bureaucratic government agency to have the legitimized power to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights. Once that is established, that agency can deny more and more citizens with an ever-growing arsenal of restrictions and prohibitions. That same agency will be able to require a "permit" and can make obtaining that permit ever more difficult, and expensive, and time consuming. That same agency could suspend 2nd Amendment privileges should there be any outstanding traffic citations, alimony payments, unpaid taxes, parking fines, overdue library books, whatever. That same agency could require a court order to have privileges restored.

If the poll question were worded "Shall the government bureaucracy have the power to turn the 2nd Amendment right into an agency-regulated privilege?" I am willing to bet the responses would be VERY different.


Well Stated!!!!:peace
 
If you have a permit, then you've passed the background check, and heymarket has nothing to complain about.
Not gonna happen. Haystack has nothing to do but complain.

Is the next move mine to personally insult you and gun owners who have taken up residence at the intersection of Slippery Slope Street and Paranoia Place?
If that's all ya got...................................then that's all ya got.

What is it exactly that you think I am complaining about?
Who knows. My guess, anything to get a rise out of someone.

Exactly the mandatory gun free schools has made schools a perfect target for nuts making a big splash to get attention. What we have done is give these nuts safe shooting galleries with live targets. WTF are we surprised? Gun control LIED, yes LIED and will always LIE.

Damn straight.....liberals are liars, Gun grabbers are an extension of that entity.
 
Oh but I did respond to the post - rather strongly. And my response was the height of logic that was well matched to the post in question. And apparently it succeeded wildly as is evidenced by your own negative response.

Height of logic? LMAO......

My response was not negative and was wholly in line with your proven outburst instead of a logical response to the post. Besides you have proved you don't know what negative is.

So rubbish you responded to one line only in order to climb on your soapbox. How come you and the truth are such strangers?
Good question.

Why do you show up here merely to continue your personal attacks upon me? Is the negativity so strong in you towards me that you simply cannot resist taking cheap shots and ignoring the actual point being made by me?

What TRUTH exactly are you referring to? Or is that just a vague and general charge that is meant only to attack and has no real substance?
You spew utter garbage and want to play the poor me card? Really?
 
Do you have anything to say on the topic instead of merely attacking me?

Do you have feelings of inadequacy? I'd say he was observing your silliness and commenting on it, not an attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom