• 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!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

Part of reducing accessibility to criminals and crazies is increasing costs.

Maybe to you, but have some pity on we, not so rich, law abiding folks. ;)

If you want to reduce gun/ammo access to crazies then don't give them student loans/grants like the Batloon in CO. Legalize drugs and cut criminal/gang profits too. Many things can be done without simply taxing things for everyone to make rights too expensive to afford.
 
You ALWAYS side with those few minority voices that fit your ideology and ignore facts and reality. There is a...trend...

It might make one wonder how a Constitutional scholar could get the recess appointment process so wrong... :damn
 
Criminals are not in the habit of acquiring their guns through legal means. They are usually stolen or purchased on the streets at prevailing value. "Crazies" are a whole other issue...

Criminals and crazies can currently buy cheap guns at gun shows in 40 states without a background check. New York City found that 85% of the guns used in murders there came from out of state.

The idea is to make harder and more expensive for criminals and crazies to acquire guns.
 
Are you really trying to equate private sellers price to government infringements? Wow...

What has been ruled to be an infringement?
 
Maybe to you, but have some pity on we, not so rich, law abiding folks. ;)

If you want to reduce gun/ammo access to crazies then don't give them student loans/grants like the Batloon in CO. Legalize drugs and cut criminal/gang profits too. Many things can be done without simply taxing things for everyone to make rights too expensive to afford.

You are assuming I knew about the Batloon in CO. I'm all for legalizing drugs, I'm all for increasing enforcement of gun laws, and I support further restricting access to gun and high capacity magazines to criminals and crazies.
 
Criminals and crazies can currently buy cheap guns at gun shows in 40 states without a background check. New York City found that 85% of the guns used in murders there came from out of state.

The idea is to make harder and more expensive for criminals and crazies to acquire guns.

Are you trying to make a point? Basically, what you post here is that criminals and "crazies" will find a way to acquire weapons regardless of the laws where they reside. I'm feeling your agreement with my previous post... :)
 
You ALWAYS side with those few minority voices that fit your ideology and ignore facts and reality. There is a...trend...

Once again you make derogatory comments and present nothing to back up your case. There is a...trend...
 
Are you trying to make a point? Basically, what you post here is that criminals and "crazies" will find a way to acquire weapons regardless of the laws where they reside. I'm feeling your agreement with my previous post... :)

The point I made was that criminals and crazies will get there guns from the cheapest, easiest place possible, right now that is at gun shows without a background check in 40 states.
 
When you get some come back.

Speaking of which...

Still waiting on that proof that the courts ruled that the 2nd amendment only applied to militias btw....

Already provided it:



"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not.

The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."

"Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
 
The point I made was that criminals and crazies will get there guns from the cheapest, easiest place possible, right now that is at gun shows without a background check in 40 states.

Did Adam Lanza visit a gun show to acquire the weapons he used? Did his mother? Your argument is faulty in its basic premise...
 
Did Adam Lanza visit a gun show to acquire the weapons he used? Did his mother? Your argument is faulty in its basic premise...

One that didn't doesn't negate the many that do. No one has claimed we will stop every criminal and crazy from getting their hands on guns. The idea is to make it harder and more expensive for them.
 
I said proof. Not blogs. The only proof that you can bring is court cases since you are claiming that the courts ruled that the 2nd only applied to militias. Try again.

A blog with a finding by Constitutional Scholar, Jeffrey Toobin, as opposed to an unsubstantiated opinion by an anonymous political forum poster.
 
One that didn't doesn't negate the many that do. No one has claimed we will stop every criminal and crazy from getting their hands on guns. The idea is to make it harder and more expensive for them.

The last time I checked, a criminal has not been deterred by cost, and it has never been that difficult for a criminal to get any gun he/she wanted. Personally, I think States are capable of regulating guns shows and any resulting sales. The Federal government has no standing in the issue except to ensure States are not infringing on their citizens' basic Constitutional rights...
 
The last time I checked, a criminal has not been deterred by cost, and it has never been that difficult for a criminal to get any gun he/she wanted. Personally, I think States are capable of regulating guns shows and any resulting sales. The Federal government has no standing in the issue except to ensure States are not infringing on their citizens' basic Constitutional rights...

You will have your day in court to make your case after the background check is expanded.
 
A blog that featured the opinion of Constitutional Scholar, Jeffrey Toobin. Your quote did not disprove what Mr. Toobin stated.
Yes it did. I quoted the Supreme Court directly, the Heller decision. You can read the entire ruling here: District Of Columbia v. Heller

Multiple sections of the court's opinion and orders declare that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right which does not require militia duty. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong. Everyone can go directly to the Heller decision and read for themselves what SCOTUS said.

For example:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re*
phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed
.”

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed
.”
But it is easy
to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the
hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic mean*
ing would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed.
Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear
Arms
” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to
hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion
usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence
whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”)
 
Last edited:
A blog with a finding by Constitutional Scholar, Jeffrey Toobin, as opposed to an unsubstantiated opinion by an anonymous political forum poster.

Hey, if there are 100 years of precedent then certainly you and Toobin can come up with at least ONE SCOTUS case in which the court ruled that the 2nd only applies to the Militia. Your blog didn't even cite ONE case.

Quit dancing around and give the proof.
 
You will have your day in court to make your case after the background check is expanded.

I really don't envision Harry doing anything to rile the gun lobby. He is a Senator from NV, correct?
 
Yes it did. I quoted the Supreme Court directly, the Heller decision. You can read the entire ruling here: District Of Columbia v. Heller

Multiple sections of the court's opinion and orders declare that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right which does not require militia duty. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong. Everyone can go directly to the Heller decision and read for themselves what SCOTUS said.

For example:

I did not argue what current interpretation is.
 
I really don't envision Harry doing anything to rile the gun lobby. He is a Senator from NV, correct?

I don't think Harry has anything to worry about. 92% support background checks for all gun sales. Even a majority of Republicans support it.
 
I don't think Harry has anything to worry about. 92% support background checks for all gun sales. Even a majority of Republicans support it.

Can you support the 92% figure you're using with recent polling data (recent being within the past seven days)?
 
Back
Top Bottom