• 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!

What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after...[W:234]

Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

haymarket said:
If you claim I believe something, simply quote me saying what you claim I believe. And 269 does not say anything other than the facts..... none of which you seem to be able to dispute.
Click to expand...

I am asking for you to clarify, your refusal is proof enough that you are running from your argument, your concession is noted and accepted.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

haymarket said:
Police DO NOT carry the weapons they do because of the Second Amendment. The carry the weapons they have because it is tools of the trade - just as it is all over the word regardless of what rights the people may have to weapons in other countries or not.

So you cannot figure those into the equation and it intellectual fraud to do so. Besides, police are NOT civilians no matter how badly the far right wants to rewrite the dictionary so they can get their hands on more powerful weaponry to better prepare for the day of right wing armageddon when they do battle with police and the armed services.

2% of our population embracing AR 15's is not common use... far far far from it.
Click to expand...

Common use is equated with police use as well, read Heller and previous second decisions regarding police use being regarded as synonymous with common use regarding small arms.
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

haymarket said:
In other words, Waldman does NOT believe as you believe and must be dismissed.
Click to expand...

Waldman is agreeing with dissenting opinion that was a minority of 1. It was rejected as being on unsound ground.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

OpportunityCost said:
Common use is equated with police use as well, read Heller and previous second decisions regarding police use being regarded as synonymous with common use regarding small arms.
Click to expand...

I see nothing of that in Heller. Please quote the appropriate section that you believe covers this claim.
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

OpportunityCost said:
Waldman is agreeing with dissenting opinion that was a minority of 1. It was rejected as being on unsound ground.
Click to expand...

In other words, Waldman does not believe as you believe and must be dismissed.

Actually it was rejected because Scalia had not yet died. Today - that decision would no longer be 5 to 4 as it was written and decided. Next year, things could well be reversed or ready to do so.

Unsound ground had not a damn thing to do with it and you know enough about numbers to realize that.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

haymarket said:
I see nothing of that in Heller. Please quote the appropriate section that you believe covers this claim.
Click to expand...

What weapons do you believe police would bring if mustered?

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

haymarket said:
In other words, Waldman does not believe as you believe and must be dismissed.

Actually it was rejected because Scalia had not yet died. Today - that decision would no longer be 5 to 4 as it was written and decided. Next year, things could well be reversed or ready to do so.

Unsound ground had not a damn thing to do with it and you know enough about numbers to realize that.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't think the ruling should be obeyed because you don't think it will come out the same now. That's an emotional leap not a logical one.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

haymarket said:
Police DO NOT carry the weapons they do because of the Second Amendment. The carry the weapons they have because it is tools of the trade - just as it is all over the word regardless of what rights the people may have to weapons in other countries or not.

So you cannot figure those into the equation and it intellectual fraud to do so. Besides, police are NOT civilians no matter how badly the far right wants to rewrite the dictionary so they can get their hands on more powerful weaponry to better prepare for the day of right wing armageddon when they do battle with police and the armed services.

2% of our population embracing AR 15's is not common use... far far far from it.
Click to expand...

Addendum, In common use would mean in common use amongst those using firearms not the population entire. Again, quit trying to move the goalposts.
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

haymarket said:
So she is one of your feared boogymen. Today is NOT the administration of William Jefferson Clinton.
Click to expand...

I did not say it is, sport. I just blew up your suggestion that Sarah Brady had not power in government. Don't make statements if you do not want to risk them getting challenged.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

haymarket said:
Besides, police are NOT civilians no matter how badly the far right wants to rewrite the dictionary so they can get their hands on more powerful weaponry to better prepare for the day of right wing armageddon when they do battle with police and the armed services.
Click to expand...

Break out the tin foil hats.
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

ObamacareFail said:
I did not say it is, sport. I just blew up your suggestion that Sarah Brady had not power in government. Don't make statements if you do not want to risk them getting challenged.
Click to expand...

This is not about sports. My statement referred to the political environment TODAY - not something a few decades ago.

But then, you knew that and Brady was the best you could up with - and that was not very applicable in the first place.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

OpportunityCost said:
Addendum, In common use would mean in common use amongst those using firearms not the population entire. Again, quit trying to move the goalposts.
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide that documentation.
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

OpportunityCost said:
In other words, you don't think the ruling should be obeyed because you don't think it will come out the same now. That's an emotional leap not a logical one.
Click to expand...

I never said that. You are trying to argue against you own invented responses - not mine.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

OpportunityCost said:
What weapons do you believe police would bring if mustered?
Click to expand...

Nothing in there says what you claimed Heller stated.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

haymarket said:
Feel free to provide that documentation.
Click to expand...

Feel free to try to prove the opposite. Why is it you feel you have to prove nothing and we have to prove everything? How would you get commonly used firearms except by examining those firearms in use? Do you even logic bro?
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

haymarket said:
I never said that. You are trying to argue against you own invented responses - not mine.
Click to expand...

Sigh, semantic argument, you said if it were re-ruled it would be in your favor. From such a statement it can inferred that you don't respect the current decision and isn't valid.

If you don't like my interpretation, feel free to clarify your own instead of engaging in semantic horse crap. You know, like everyone else does, presents their views honestly and candidly rather than prying them from you like a hostile cross examination.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

haymarket said:
Nothing in there says what you claimed Heller stated.
Click to expand...

Oh. Do you believe police might be part of a militia? What weapons do you suppose they would bring?
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

Are the police part of our civil government, or part of the military? The idea that they are not civilians is absurd.

"Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to non-military law enforcement officers as civilians, since they are employees rather than enlisted personnel, and also in order to distinguish itself from military police."
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

Aberration said:
Are the police part of our civil government, or part of the military? The idea that they are not civilians is absurd.

"Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to non-military law enforcement officers as civilians, since they are employees rather than enlisted personnel, and also in order to distinguish itself from military police."
Click to expand...

You realize he argued the opposite for 10 pages in a different thread? He's going to chase this down the rabbit hole in this one as well, I would assume.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

OpportunityCost said:
Feel free to try to prove the opposite. Why is it you feel you have to prove nothing and we have to prove everything? How would you get commonly used firearms except by examining those firearms in use? Do you even logic bro?
Click to expand...

Which is your way os saying you cannot provide any verifiable evidence for your claim

In common use would mean in common use amongst those using firearms not the population entire.
Click to expand...

Police officers in the USA do NOT have the weapons they do because of the Second Amendment. They have the weapons they do because they are tools of the trade. That is true in the USA and is true in nations all over the globe irregardless of any rights of citizens here or in any other nation. So to try and dishonestly connect the right to keep and bear arms with the weapons police officers have and pretend they then apply to common use among the citizenry is the worst sort of gross intellectual fraud.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

Aberration said:
Are the police part of our civil government, or part of the military? The idea that they are not civilians is absurd.

"Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to non-military law enforcement officers as civilians, since they are employees rather than enlisted personnel, and also in order to distinguish itself from military police."
Click to expand...

That false claim has been repeatedly exposed and even some on your side have admitted their error.

Here is the language in Chapter 18 Title 10

(a) The Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Attorney General, shall conduct an annual briefing of law enforcement personnel of each State (including law enforcement personnel of the political subdivisions of each State) regarding information, training, technical support, and equipment and facilities available to civilian law enforcement personnel from the Department of Defense.
Click to expand...

The law is referring to the rightful law enforcement authorities for civilians. It is NOT defining police officers as civilians.

So you and all the gun folk can drop that canard as its been exposed - and rather easily at that.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

OpportunityCost said:
You realize he argued the opposite for 10 pages in a different thread? He's going to chase this down the rabbit hole in this one as well, I would assume.
Click to expand...

see post 347 - which btw is NOT new information.
 
Re: WHOA! Finally, a couple Fox News pundits open the door to gun control!

OpportunityCost said:
Oh. Do you believe police might be part of a militia? What weapons do you suppose they would bring?
Click to expand...

Militia? What militia?
 
Re: What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando

OpportunityCost said:
Sigh, semantic argument, you said if it were re-ruled it would be in your favor. From such a statement it can inferred that you don't respect the current decision and isn't valid.

If you don't like my interpretation, feel free to clarify your own instead of engaging in semantic horse crap. You know, like everyone else does, presents their views honestly and candidly rather than prying them from you like a hostile cross examination.
Click to expand...

Again, you argue with invented positions of your own - not what was said to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom