• 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 Judge Got It Right About Gun Control and Rights In General…

Thunder said:
what's your question, Typical Rabid?
Click to expand...

"I don't see it as common sense that you must be 21 in order to get a gun, unless those guns are filled with vodka? What an arbitrary number you pulled out of your head and labeled as common sense.

Can you draw a quantifiable connection between guns being "on the books" and our safety? I see it as a step towards gun control of the state, as I mentioned in an earlier post."

Funny how you can reply to a post but fail to read it. Good job chief.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
"I don't see it as common sense that you must be 21 in order to get a gun, unless those guns are filled with vodka? What an arbitrary number you pulled out of your head and labeled as common sense.

Can you draw a quantifiable connection between guns being "on the books" and our safety? I see it as a step towards gun control of the state, as I mentioned in an earlier post."...
Click to expand...

we don't need 15 year olds playing with handguns.

we don't need felons, playing with guns.

we don't need folks who were sent to a mental institution by a judge, playing with guns.



....why do you want such folks playing with guns?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Click to expand...
While your 'headline' is correct, I suspect the ruling will fail upon appeal. The operative claim: "In his ruling, Legg wrote that Second Amendment protections aren't limited to the household." has not yet been given the nod by SCOTUS (and I doubt it will).

This is a conceal carry case, for those that haven't browsed the link. The AP story is a bit of a mess, but it's a concealed carry case... see http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.1.0.pdf and http://comm2a.org/discretionary-licensing-right-to-carry/15-woollard-v-sheridan-md

The plaintiff is arguing 'shall issue' status, and some states -- like Maryland -- still don't play that. The plaintiff's right to carry a firearm on his own property is not in dispute by the state.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
"I don't see it as common sense that you must be 21 in order to get a gun, unless those guns are filled with vodka? What an arbitrary number you pulled out of your head and labeled as common sense.

Can you draw a quantifiable connection between guns being "on the books" and our safety? I see it as a step towards gun control of the state, as I mentioned in an earlier post."

Funny how you can reply to a post but fail to read it. Good job chief.
Click to expand...

please don't use the respected title of Chief in a derogatory manner.... Thanx
Respectfully.... The Chief :lol:
 
Karl said:
While your 'headline' is correct, I suspect the ruling will fail upon appeal. The operative claim: "In his ruling, Legg wrote that Second Amendment protections aren't limited to the household." has not yet been given the nod by SCOTUS (and I doubt it will).

This is a conceal carry case, for those that haven't browsed the link. The AP story is a bit of a mess, but it's a concealed carry case... see http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.1.0.pdf and Woollard v. Sheridan (MD)

The plaintiff is arguing 'shall issue' status, and some states -- like Maryland -- still don't play that. The plaintiff's right to carry a firearm on his own property is not in dispute by the state.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually see that in the article until you mentioned it, but I find it very interesting. From what I understand, the SCOTUS stated in McDonald v. Chicago that the immediate defense of one's self is a central component to the 2nd amendment right. That seems very clear to me that, while the need for self-defense may be most acute in one's home, it certainly extends to nonsensitive public areas, and potentially to sensitive public areas as well.

And I really don't like the requirement to show a reason to exercise one's right to self-defense. In Heller and Chicago, the SCOTUS stated that handguns are essentially the most proliferated form of 2nd amendment expression, and can be used for traditionallty lawful purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom