• 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!

The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

AlabamaPaul said:
You obviously didn't understand the post...
Click to expand...

No. I understood it quite perfectly. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. That is just a fact. There are all kinds of weapons that are currently restricted.
 
The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fi

disneydude said:
You are simply wrong. Sorry. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. There is no right that is absolute. The Constitution does not make any right absolute. It only limits restrictions that the government can place...but the key word is "LIMIT". It doesn't ban all restrictions.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, if the Constitution doesn't say you can, then you can't.

Does the Constitution say that the government can require background checks in order to bear arms?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No. I understood it quite perfectly. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. That is just a fact. There are all kinds of weapons that are currently restricted.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what "bear" means? As has already been mentioned, each citizen should have access to the same weapons that are individually issued to the military or law enforcement...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fi

The Man said:
Like I said earlier, if the Constitution doesn't say you can, then you can't.

Does the Constitution say that the government can require background checks in order to bear arms?
Click to expand...

You have to understand the leftwing view of the constitution. THe government can do anything it wants unless the ACLU and the Courts say otherwise. the concept of a government limited to the specific powers delegated to it is something they reject and ignore
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No it isn't. There are hundreds of examples of limitations that are placed all over the bill of rights that are Constitutional.
Click to expand...

The constitution lays out the powers granted to the Government. But like a child, when you tell them what they can do, you also have to say what they can't. And that's the Bill of Rights. It's a list of "can't"s
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
You are simply wrong. Sorry. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. There is no right that is absolute.
Click to expand...

The only person here that doesn't know what they are talking about is you. I could argue that speech never violates the rights of someone else, and like it or not I would have a good argument towards those ends to make. That is not the point however. The point is that until such point that someone violates the rights of someone else rights are untouchable. The second amendment makes it very clear the peoples right to bear arms is unrestricted and the fact is all rights work on this same principle.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Wrong. It is not absolute. What it DOES require is that any limitation which the government seeks to impose must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, otherwise it would be stricken as unconstitutional. But you are 100% wrong if you claim it is absolute.
Click to expand...

Not compelling government interest. Nothing in compelling government interest. Compelling government interest is to enslave us all and establish an aristocracy. Limitations are only found in functional and direct threats to the rights of others.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

AlabamaPaul said:
This whole situation was an exploitation of a tragedy. It was the President's, as well as other Dems, intent to move something through the Senate and have it go nowhere in the House to use in the 2014 election cycle. That's why the President was so angry last night. He just lost one of his aces n the hole...
Click to expand...

Just because Obama has no re-election hopes does not make it so for other demorats in the Senate. The nonsense that 90% (or so) of the people favor federal gov't mandated user fees for all gun transfers/sales is rediculous, especially if none of that fee is used to fund any further enforcement of federal gun laws. Surely people see a distiction from requiring presentation of photo ID (to prove age) for alcohol/tobacco purchases and charging a "clerk fee" for the required examination of that ID.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Wrong. It is not absolute. What it DOES require is that any limitation which the government seeks to impose must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, otherwise it would be stricken as unconstitutional. But you are 100% wrong if you claim it is absolute.
Click to expand...

The only interest government has is power.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
The only person here that doesn't know what they are talking about is you. I could argue that speech never violates the rights of someone else, and like it or not I would have a good argument towards those ends to make. That is not the point however. The point is that until such point that someone violates the rights of someone else rights are untouchable. The second amendment makes it very clear the peoples right to bear arms is unrestricted and the fact is all rights work on this same principle.
Click to expand...

Again....just displaying that you don't know what you are talking about. If the right to possess weapons under the 2nd Amendment is absolute, how do you account for the fact that there are already weapons that are currently banned?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No. I understood it quite perfectly. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. That is just a fact. There are all kinds of weapons that are currently restricted.
Click to expand...

If that is your position then you would have to admit Obama and the liberals are weak and have lost their mandate
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Fisher said:
If that is your position then you would have to admit Obama and the liberals are weak and have lost their mandate
Click to expand...

No. Only that there are a lot of cowards in the Senate that haven't a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby. But we've known that for a long time. Congress is full of spineless idiots who are afraid of their own shadow.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Again....just displaying that you don't know what you are talking about. If the right to possess weapons under the 2nd Amendment is absolute, how do you account for the fact that there are already weapons that are currently banned?
Click to expand...

because there are judges who were politicians first and did what their master told them to do

can you find any proper delegation of power to the federal government supporting your claim that the federal government has that power

it took 140 years and FDR to create that power
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No. Only that there are a lot of cowards in the Senate that haven't a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby. But we've known that for a long time. Congress is full of spineless idiots who are afraid of their own shadow.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about timid gun haters who want the government (People with guns) to persecute and disarm other people with guns so as to make the cowards feel better about their own timidity
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No. Only that there are a lot of cowards in the Senate that haven't a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby. But we've known that for a long time. Congress is full of spineless idiots who are afraid of their own shadow.
Click to expand...

So the NRA is stronger than the President. Glad you admitted that. Maybe Obama and the liberals can actually try real bipartisanship. Until then, they lost.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

TurtleDude said:
I feel the same way about timid gun haters who want the government (People with guns) to persecute and disarm other people with guns so as to make the cowards feel better about their own timidity
Click to expand...

Take another deep breath TD. People aren't coming after your guns. Relax.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Fisher said:
So the NRA is stronger than the President. Glad you admitted that. Maybe Obama and the liberals can actually try real bipartisanship. Until then, they lost.
Click to expand...

In many ways Yes. That's one of the things that is wrong with this Country. Our Congress is so afraid of Special Interest Lobbies that they often vote against the will of the people and/or the interests of America because they lack the backbone to stand up for what is right.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Take another deep breath TD. People aren't coming after your guns. Relax.
Click to expand...

I was in ENgland right before Dunblane. Gun haters said the same thing there too. Same in NJ when they passed registration of "assault wepaons".

part of the incremental strategy of banning guns is for gun haters to only support the "NEXT REASONABLE STEP"

I suspect when people like me complained about the NYS limitations years ago, you denied that a ten round limit was a stepping stone to 7 round limits

guess what-no one believes you or those who make such claims anymore. We have seen too many politicians demand more and more restrictions every time they can find enough blood to oil the path towards confiscation
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No. Only that there are a lot of cowards in the Senate that haven't a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby. But we've known that for a long time. Congress is full of spineless idiots who are afraid of their own shadow.
Click to expand...

Meh, I won't defend them because they're not really out for our rights and liberties, but rather their donors. But I do agree with the outcome. That was no compromise, and there is no reason to expect that sort of limitation to the free exercise of rights.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Again....just displaying that you don't know what you are talking about. If the right to possess weapons under the 2nd Amendment is absolute, how do you account for the fact that there are already weapons that are currently banned?
Click to expand...

Corrupt justices, corrupt politicians, politics. and money.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
In many ways Yes. That's one of the things that is wrong with this Country. Our Congress is so afraid of Special Interest Lobbies that they often vote against the will of the people and/or the interests of America because they lack the backbone to stand up for what is right.
Click to expand...

You might want to consider they over-reached all at once. They probably could have done the magazines in some way and the gun show thing, but they went too far and now are getting nothing. Having Bloomberg and Fienstien vocally wanting to do away with all or most guns probably didn't help.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
oh....I see......
Click to expand...

Government only ever gets more powerful. There is a reason for that.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

TurtleDude said:
I was in ENgland right before Dunblane. Gun haters said the same thing there too. Same in NJ when they passed registration of "assault wepaons".

part of the incremental strategy of banning guns is for gun haters to only support the "NEXT REASONABLE STEP"

I suspect when people like me complained about the NYS limitations years ago, you denied that a ten round limit was a stepping stone to 7 round limits

guess what-no one believes you or those who make such claims anymore. We have seen too many politicians demand more and more restrictions every time they can find enough blood to oil the path towards confiscation
Click to expand...

Wow....paranoia. Take a deep breath.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Wow....paranoia. Take a deep breath.
Click to expand...

you don't help your stealth campaign at all by denying the obvious

nice ploy but it doesn't wor

your leftwing masters like DIFI and Chuckie have revealed their hands

gun bans, confiscation, punitive taxes, expensive registration requirements have all been supported

and yet you bleat that its not true and all your lords and overlords want is mere waiting periods

ignorance of history is not sound
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom