• 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!

This is how the Second Amendment should be Interpreted! Florida HB 1205

Captain Adverse said:
I came across a video discussing how a Florida State Representative seeks to pass a bill properly protecting the right as the Second Amendment should be interpreted.

It led me to seek out the actual text, link below:



HB 1205 (2021) - Protection of Constitutional Firearms Rights | Florida House of Representatives (myfloridahouse.gov)

IMO this perfectly explains how the right to keep and bear arms should be understood and preserved nationally.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of American citizens currently own firearms. The number of persons committing crimes using a gun occurs within a very small percentage of that number, while the subset of those committing what the media label "mass shootings" is a tiny fraction of that general crimes percentage.

I do not own a firearm. I haven't owned one in decades. Not since I served 2 years in law enforcement, after a 10 year period of service in combat arms specialties in the US Army.

Yet I strongly support this right for reasons stated in other threads on gun control.

IMO Americans should embrace this right as listed in our Bill of Rights, second only to those Freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment which the 2nd was designed to allow an armed citizenry to protect.

IMO anyone who support efforts to either disarm the common citizenry, or reduce access to effective arms from said citizenry is either a traitor to our essential liberties, or short-sighted sheep being lead astray by those who seek to control them.
Click to expand...
Is a 12-year-old a law-abiding citizen under that bill?
 
aociswundumho said:
I agree, but John Brown would never support any gun control, especially since the original purpose of gun control was to keep blacks disarmed.
Click to expand...
And once again a rightist plays the race card.
Didn't you tell me yesterday that the left is obsessed with race?
 
Grand Mal said:
And once again a rightist plays the race card.
Click to expand...

It's not "playing the race card" because I am not advocating special treatment for blacks or for any other race.

Didn't you tell me yesterday that the left is obsessed with race?
Click to expand...

Yes, and they are.
 
aociswundumho said:
It's not "playing the race card" because I am not advocating special treatment for blacks or for any other race.



Yes, and they are.
Click to expand...
And yet you first brought up Clarence Thomas's race and you brought race into this discussion.
There does seem to be an obsession at work.
 
Grand Mal said:
And yet you first brought up Clarence Thomas's race and you brought race into this discussion.
There does seem to be an obsession at work.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. Quote the text written by me if you disagree.
 
TurtleDude said:
what a ridiculous attempt to derail his thread with a moronic "guilt by association" bit of idiocy. He didn't support the lawless rioting by a small minority of Trump voters so why try to claim they were "his side" or that the second amendment turns on what a few people you think are supporters did? Should we smear you with the deaths and rioting that was caused by leftwing agitators over the hysterics following the death of George Floyd?
Click to expand...

Stupidity unharnessed when you think about it.
 
CaughtInThe said:
what fascinates me is the posters who will enter and post in this type of thread and not enter and post in a thread where an adult appears to have had sex with a minor (and paid her).
Click to expand...

The right has gone pretty quiet on that...
 
TurtleDude said:
what a ridiculous attempt to derail his thread with a moronic "guilt by association" bit of idiocy. He didn't support the lawless rioting by a small minority of Trump voters so why try to claim they were "his side" or that the second amendment turns on what a few people you think are supporters did? Should we smear you with the deaths and rioting that was caused by leftwing agitators over the hysterics following the death of George Floyd?
Click to expand...
Like you don't already? I'm sure if they don't do justice in this case it will go to the streets, and I'm positive you'll smear the crap out of anyone left of center.
 
noonereal said:
most?

Is this even serious?
Click to expand...

All but some of the officers and embedded reporters.

One of the videos I watched came from a reporter who hid among them. He risked his life to get that footage. If they knew who he was, there is a very good chance they would have beaten him to a pulp...or worse.
 
Phys251 said:
All but some of the officers and embedded reporters.

One of the videos I watched came from a reporter who hid among them. He risked his life to get that footage. If they knew who he was, there is a very good chance they would have beaten him to a pulp...or worse.
Click to expand...


Worse than being beaten to a pulp ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Worse than being beaten to a pulp ?
Click to expand...

(TW:SA)

I've listened to AOC's terrifying recap of her taking shelter and being mislead by...someone...about where to go next. I have no doubt in my mind that some of those thugs would have raped her had they caught her.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... do you support state laws which legalize or decimalize marijuana? If not, then can you explain the constitutional difference?
Click to expand...
There is none. If the feds wanted to enforce their archaic scheduling of cannabis and the laws associated with it, they could take a state to court. Why haven't they? They'd lose.
 
Phys251 said:
(TW:SA)

I've listened to AOC's terrifying recap of her taking shelter and being mislead by...someone...about where to go next. I have no doubt in my mind that some of those thugs would have raped her had they caught her.
Click to expand...

Probably true...and then beaten her to death

So yes, raped and beaten to a pulp is worse.
 
Still interested in the answer to this:
Glitch said:
What part of "[a]s the Fifth Amendment says, '[n]o person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'" did you not comprehend? It has nothing to do with the Second or any other amendment. The OP also did not propose a damn thing. Clearly English can't be you first language, or you are deliberately trolling. Either way I suggest you reread both the OPs and my post and get a damn clue.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
Let's try this again, but I cant find words with fewer syllables so we'll see.

You wrote this:
Click to expand...

Glitch said:
Convicted felons cannot possess or own firearms. As far as the "mentally ill" are concerned, if they are given their constitutionally protected individual right to due process of law first and evidence is presented before the court, which then determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is a threat to themselves or others, then they may have their firearms removed, but not before.
Click to expand...
If that LAW or restriction is not stated in the 2A, which it is not...how can there be due process for it? If the 2A has no exceptions for felons/mentally ill (it doesnt)...how do you claim they can lose their 2A rights if there is due process? Due process for what law?

Higher courts and state legislators have enabled laws that consider convicted felons and some mentally ill as prohibited persons. This is nowhere in the 2A.

(And the OP list also doesnt call this out either)
 
mrjurrs said:
There is none. If the feds wanted to enforce their archaic scheduling of cannabis and the laws associated with it, they could take a state to court. Why haven't they? They'd lose.
Click to expand...

But that's not the only sanction the federal government has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom