• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 to do about the mass shootings in the US

What do we do about mass shootings in the US?

  • Ban US citizens from owning any firearm - confiscate those already purchased

    Votes: 7 5.7%

  • Ban US citizens from owning certain kinds of firearms (explain)

    Votes: 21 17.1%

  • Don't ban firearms at all

    Votes: 23 18.7%

  • Institutionalize the violent and mentally ill

    Votes: 29 23.6%

  • Something else

    Votes: 71 57.7%
  • Total voters
    123
OpportunityCost said:
Which addresses the post not the person. You are very recalcitrant when proven wrong, you have gone out of your way for several pages to try to slide your point around and now you want to try to assert I called you a liar. You aren't used to being questioned, are you?
Click to expand...

No I said you implied. Actually you can call or imply any name you want. I really don't care. It's your denial of your implications that I'm addressing.
 
haymarket said:
Nothing I propose violates that Constitution as the 2nd amendment right will be preserved.
Click to expand...
We have your fake definition of preserving that right, no one agrees with your bull**** single gun definition. You are the extremist.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
weaver2 said:
No I said you implied. Actually you can call or imply any name you want. I really don't care. It's your denial of your implications that I'm addressing.
Click to expand...
Do you always whine for days after being proven wrong?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
vegas giants said:
Really? The gun control I want already exists in some parts of the US. It is presumed constitutional
Click to expand...
Because it takes a very long time to mount challenges to said ****ty laws. Presumption isn't fact. I'm sure they felt trigger locks and banned carry was constitutional in DC...until it wasn't.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because it takes a very long time to mount challenges to said ****ty laws. Presumption isn't fact. I'm sure they felt trigger locks and banned carry was constitutional in DC...until it wasn't.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted and dismissed.

Its constitutional as of today. File a case and get back to me. Lol
 
OpportunityCost said:
We have your fake definition of preserving that right, no one agrees with your bull**** single gun definition. You are the extremist.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Which makes 70% of the American public "extremist" by your standard. Of course, it squashes your idea of what an extremist is when it is embraced by the overwhelming majority of the American people.
 
haymarket said:
Which makes 70% of the American public "extremist" by your standard. Of course, it squashes your idea of what an extremist is when it is embraced by the overwhelming majority of the American people.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. 70% of people wouldn't agree with a single weapon with a single bullet as satisfying the second amendment. Also, an appeal to populism? You know better especially when you aren't disclosing what you really believe.
 
vegas giants said:
Your opinion is noted and dismissed.

Its constitutional as of today. File a case and get back to me. Lol
Click to expand...

It isn't actually, that was my point. Mandating trigger locks isn't constitutional, banning carry outside the home isn't constitutional.

It used to be, until it was challenged. Which makes your argument ****, like usual.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It isn't actually, that was my point. Mandating trigger locks isn't constitutional, banning carry outside the home isn't constitutional.

It used to be, until it was challenged. Which makes your argument ****, like usual.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned those two things. I'm sure you thought an assault weapons ban was unconstitutional.....until we had one.


You are dismissed. Lol
 
OpportunityCost said:
No, it isn't. 70% of people wouldn't agree with a single weapon with a single bullet as satisfying the second amendment. Also, an appeal to populism? You know better especially when you aren't disclosing what you really believe.
Click to expand...

It is simply a statement that if my position is agreed with my 70% of the American people, it is mainstream and hardly extremist no matter now much you loathe it yourself.

That would make which one of the extremist?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Due process means that you must be found guilty before a sentence is imposed. Due process does not mean the government can take your property/rights away and then maybe get them back if you can manage to get the sentence (already imposed) reduced in a later court proceeding.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's fundamentally a wrong description of due process. Due process, literally means the process that is "due" in a given circumstance: A search warrant is a "due process", a probable cause seizure is a due process. The "process" frequently occurs after an action has been taken. Habeas corpus is a good example.
 
NWRatCon said:
Actually, that's fundamentally a wrong description of due process. Due process, literally means the process that is "due" in a given circumstance: A search warrant is a "due process", a probable cause seizure is a due process. The "process" frequently occurs after an action has been taken. Habeas corpus is a good example.
Click to expand...

Exactly right
 
vegas giants said:
I never mentioned those two things. I'm sure you thought an assault weapons ban was unconstitutional.....until we had one.


You are dismissed. Lol
Click to expand...
It is demonstrating a point. Laws are constitutional until they arent, like the law overturned in Heller.

As for the assault weapons ban, it was about to be challenged. So it was allowed to sunset because Democrats knew it was going to be overturned.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
It is demonstrating a point. Laws are constitutional until they arent, like the law overturned in Heller.

As for the assault weapons ban, it was about to be challenged. So it was allowed to sunset because Democrats knew it was going to be overturned.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree laws are constitutional until they arent. So current gun laws are constitutional.

Got a problem with that? File a case. Until then you got nothing and are dismissed
 
haymarket said:
It is simply a statement that if my position is agreed with my 70% of the American people, it is mainstream and hardly extremist no matter now much you loathe it yourself.

That would make which one of the extremist?
Click to expand...
Which position? You agree to incremental bans because you know no one would agree with one gun, one bullet as satisfying the 2nd, so you play your bull**** games like you are here. Meanwhile your actual positions are nowhere near mainstream, but you act like they are.

That, sir is a crap argument.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom