• 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!

Redding California Tea Party right to bear arms Second Amendment Rally

Kal'Stang said:
Q: How many laws does it take before they will be "perfect"?

A: Zero.

Why?: Because criminals ignore the law which means the only people being affected by gun laws are innocent people.
Click to expand...

This absurd argument can be used against literally any law. Criminals will just ignore murder and terrorism laws!

Why background check gun sales, criminals will just buy guns anyway!
Why make nuclear weapons illegal instead of selling them at Wal-Mart? Criminals will just get them anyway!
Why not sell guns anonymously from vending machines? Criminals will just get them anyway!

So do you think there should be no laws, or only no gun laws?
 
j-mac said:
Lots of projection going on here....You were talking about the single rally in one county making the whole thing a fail, and I showed you what a fail actually looks like. So in true fashion you can only come back and twist, turn, and mouth foam over nothing....But hey, we are all aware that progressives have nothing but pejorative, and personal attack...They really are like children.
Click to expand...

And there you go again, you just can't help yourself can you? I am talking about a single rally as IT being an epic fail, not the national events...(where there national events???) You just have to twist and spin everything into what it never was.

You didn't wish to show a failed rally you did the third grade- 'your side did it too' crap. Trying to deflect the conversation.

You should look in the mirror and meet Mr. Kettle. You have done nothing but personal attacks on progressives- you claim we lie, hide an agenda, can't present facts and boy howdy did I fact you like an ARC light strike in the burglars use 'the map' thread.

But rather than admit you get whipped like a rented mule you throw poo and call the other guy a child...

seriously???? :lamo
 
Deuce said:
This absurd argument can be used against literally any law. Criminals will just ignore murder and terrorism laws!
Click to expand...

So you got the point of my post. Good. The point of course was to show that no laws will ever be perfect. So your question of "Because apparently existing gun laws are perfect?" is equally as absurd as my arguement. ;)

Deuce said:
So do you think there should be no laws, or only no gun laws?
Click to expand...

I believe that civilians should be allowed to own any gun that is in the military. That was the whole point of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. To keep the civilians on equal footing with the government.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you got the point of my post. Good. The point of course was to show that no laws will ever be perfect. So your question of "Because apparently existing gun laws are perfect?" is equally as absurd as my arguement. ;)



I believe that civilians should be allowed to own any gun that is in the military. That was the whole point of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. To keep the civilians on equal footing with the government.
Click to expand...

Lame. I believe everyone who has voted republican and caused the outsourcing of our jobs, the lowering of our wages, the high pollution in the water and food and increases in cancers should be housed in warehouses and have to wait to see if they are allowed back inside the US. We don't all get what we want in a society whose basic premise is individual rights.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Lame. I believe everyone who has voted republican and caused the outsourcing of our jobs, the lowering of our wages, the high pollution in the water and food and increases in cancers should be housed in warehouses and have to wait to see if they are allowed back inside the US. We don't all get what we want in a society whose basic premise is individual rights.
Click to expand...

:roll: Except when those individual rights are the 2nd ammendment apparently--that one doesnt count to you eh?
 
Muddy Creek said:
Lame. I believe everyone who has voted republican and caused the outsourcing of our jobs, the lowering of our wages, the high pollution in the water and food and increases in cancers should be housed in warehouses and have to wait to see if they are allowed back inside the US. We don't all get what we want in a society whose basic premise is individual rights.
Click to expand...

Wow...the irony meter just broke. :shock:

Here you are saying that all those that vote republican should be housed in warehouses which is an infringement on peoples individual rights and then you turn around and say that the basic premise of this society is individual rights. MAJOR logic fail there bub. And thats not even including the fact that you are apprently anti-gun rights considering my post was about pro-gun rights and you called my post lame. Add that and the irony just keeps a coming.

btw, I'm not republican and have never voted republican. Where do I fall in your utopia of no republicans to go against your beliefs?
 
disneydude said:
The people who live in Redding and Shasta County are pretty much right out of deliverance.
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty asinine comment, I know more than a few libs in Redding. Youre stereotyping bull**** response is noted, sneared at, dismissed and pissed on like the mental refuse it is.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I believe that civilians should be allowed to own any gun that is in the military. That was the whole point of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. To keep the civilians on equal footing with the government.
Click to expand...

Actually it was so Southern slave owners could use white militias (i.e., death squads) to find, shoot and or torture run away slaves. The only reason we have a second amendment was because the slave owning criminals knew the North despised their ugly lifestyle, and might ban the guns they used to exploit and kill blacks.

Wonderful history, eh?

University of California at Davis Law Review
 
disneydude said:
The people who live in Redding and Shasta County are pretty much right out of deliverance.
Click to expand...

Sadly true. It's the only place left in California where tea partiers can roam the street, a danger to themselves and others, without a handler. Redding should be lifted up and transported to Alabama or something, where the inhabitants would find a more congenial home for their gun nuttery and knownothingism.
 
head of joaquin said:
Actually it was so Southern Slave owners could use white militias (gangs) to find, shoot and or torture run away slaves. The only reason we have a second amendment was because the slave owning criminals knew the North despised their ugly lifestyle, and might ban the guns they used to exploit and kill blacks.

Wonderful history, eh?

University of California at Davis Law Review
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that race and racism was brought into this discussion?

btw...you DID notice that your link was not really from the University of California right? That it is a .org site?
 
head of joaquin said:
Actually it was so Southern slave owners could use white militias (i.e., death squads) to find, shoot and or torture run away slaves. The only reason we have a second amendment was because the slave owning criminals knew the North despised their ugly lifestyle, and might ban the guns they used to exploit and kill blacks.

Wonderful history, eh?

University of California at Davis Law Review
Click to expand...

States could already do that. I have read/heard a billion times that the need for militia powers which drove the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was because of the inability to dispatch one during Shay's Rebellion but if an autocratic liberal links a law school article, clearly all our historians are wrong. :roll:
 
Fisher said:
States could already do that. I have read/heard a billion times that the need for militia powers which drove the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was because of the inability to dispatch one during Shay's Rebellion but if an autocratic liberal links a law school article, clearly all our historians are wrong. :roll:
Click to expand...

psst...it wasn't even from a law school article...it was from a .org site. Schools are .edu.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why am I not surprised that race and racism was brought into this discussion?

btw...you DID notice that your link was not really from the University of California right? That it is a .org site?
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, you wouldn't want a constitutional scholar to discuss how the second amendment came into being due to southern slaveowner's fears. Let's not get facts in the way of your NRA narrative.
 
Kal'Stang said:
psst...it wasn't even from a law school article...it was from a .org site. Schools are .edu.
Click to expand...

Pssst: it's a famous article that totally debunks the gun lobby myth, published originally in U.C. Davis Law Review. Deal with the merits not your ignorance of the publication facts.
 
Fisher said:
States could already do that. I have read/heard a billion times that the need for militia powers which drove the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was because of the inability to dispatch one during Shay's Rebellion but if an autocratic liberal links a law school article, clearly all our historians are wrong. :roll:
Click to expand...

Read the article. Then give the discredited NRA talking points.
 
head of joaquin said:
Uh, yeah, you wouldn't want a constitutional scholar to discuss how the second amendment came into being due to southern slaveowner's fears. Let's not get facts in the way of your NRA narrative.
Click to expand...

Link me to a real constiutional scholar and I would consider it. Since you haven't done that why should I listen?

Oh and btw, Carl T Bogus is anti-gun...why should I listen to anything he says?
 
Last edited:
Blue_State said:
Those people all looked out of control. I saw crazy eyes everywhere.
Click to expand...

crazy extremist in that video. Extremist crazy far right extremist extremisssstttttttttttt fffaarr riiiggghhhhtttt extreme. Dangerous I say! Have i painted them as far right extremist yet?
 
head of joaquin said:
Pssst: it's a famous article that totally debunks the gun lobby myth, published originally in U.C. Davis Law Review. Deal with the merits not your ignorance of the publication facts.
Click to expand...

Yep, a journal, big whoop. Getting something published in a journal isn't that hard, nor does it have to be factual. BTW, here's his home page...

Carl T. Bogus

Where does it say that he is a Constitutional Scholar?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Link me to a real constiutional scholar and I would consider it. Since you haven't done that why should I listen?

Oh and btw, Carl T Bogus is anti-gun...why should I listen to anything he says?
Click to expand...

This is the best you can do? BWHHWHHAHAHHAH!

Stay with your ahistorical NRA narratives. They become you.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yep, a journal, big whoop. Getting something published in a journal isn't that hard, nor does it have to be factual. BTW, here's his home page...

Carl T. Bogus

Where does it say that he is a Constitutional Scholar?
Click to expand...

So you read the article and want to discuss the merits?

Oh wait, no, you want to pretend to make arguments. I forget. I'm dealing with a gun lover.
 
head of joaquin said:
This is the best you can do? BWHHWHHAHAHHAH!

Stay with your ahistorical NRA narratives. They become you.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll stay with them. I'll also suggest that you lose that chip on your shoulder and get away from always bringing up the race card while I'm at it. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you got the point of my post. Good. The point of course was to show that no laws will ever be perfect. So your question of "Because apparently existing gun laws are perfect?" is equally as absurd as my arguement. ;)
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Theirs is an argument of absolutism, mine is one of nuance. I am not foolish enough to think that current laws cannot even be tweaked. The people holding those signs think that.



I believe that civilians should be allowed to own any gun that is in the military. That was the whole point of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. To keep the civilians on equal footing with the government.
Click to expand...

There are those who would disagree about that point. Even among the founding fathers there was disagreement. Some would argue that the point was to avoid the need for an overly-powerful standing army, because those guys saw standing armies as tools for aristocrats to seize power. Hence the first part of the amendment, the part you guys always leave out. A well-regulated militia...

Do you really believe civilians should be on equal footing with the government? Guns, you say. How about grenade and rocket launchers? Portable surface to air weaponry? Does this include tanks? Attack helicopters? Fighter jets? Nuclear weapons? If not, you aren't really on equal footing, now are you?

It's not the 18th century.
 
I'm wondering if that's a smart move or not for them. On one hand, it's a passionate issue, allowing the Tea Party to get actively involved again so soon after the election. On top of that, there is significant overlap between 2nd amendment defenders and the Tea Party. Then again, the advantage of largely concentrating on fiscal matters enables you to bring in a wider coalition than if you keep adding planks to your platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom