• 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!

South Carolina lawmaker wants to create registry for journalists

fmw said:
The one maintained by the ATF. Every gun sold by a dealer is registered with the ATF. That is how gun owners are identified in police investigations. I know because I was once a gun dealer many years ago.
Click to expand...

You mean the serial numbers on guns.

Votes and news articles don't have the capability to demolish people in a hail of bullets.
 
Renae said:
That's because you believe that being offended gives you the right to deny others their free exercise of their religious rights. And I quote:
Click to expand...

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Exactly: using government property to support one sect's religious activity impedes the free exercise of religion for every other sect. Taking offense has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't say anything about "Government property". What you are trying to do is say the first part, prohibiting any law establishing a religion is a restriction on the second part saying "You cannot restriction free exercise of religion". The convoluted logic required to find that acceptable is far beyond me.
Click to expand...

Not that the 1A grants any absolute right to begin with, but as I explained, the above is nothing like what I argued.
 
Kobie said:
Blatant First Amendment violation.
Click to expand...

Why would that same state licensing requirement not also be a blatant 2A violation? The 2A is not a right to discharge a gun, it is only the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
Kobie said:
You mean the serial numbers on guns.

Votes and news articles don't have the capability to demolish people in a hail of bullets.
Click to expand...

Adding a serial number to a gun does not diminish that capability. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to discharge those arms. The point was the ability, or lack thereof, of the state to issue constitutional rights permits.
 
Kobie said:
You mean the serial numbers on guns.

Votes and news articles don't have the capability to demolish people in a hail of bullets.
Click to expand...

You may want to ask Richard Jewell, his experience is exactly that.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Exactly: using government property to support one sect's religious activity impedes the free exercise of religion for every other sect. Taking offense has nothing to do with it.



Not that the 1A grants any absolute right to begin with, but as I explained, the above is nothing like what I argued.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. That argument flies both in the face of logic and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Fact: The capitol building used to hold church sessions attended by Presidents.

Refute that with todays "Restrict religion based on bull****" if you can. Cause that's all it is.

You argued a bull**** line, tht should be reversed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why would that same state licensing requirement not also be a blatant 2A violation? The 2A is not a right to discharge a gun, it is only the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Please link to the post where i've advocated gun registries.
 
Renae said:
No, it doesn't. That argument flies both in the face of logic and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Fact: The capitol building used to hold church sessions attended by Presidents.

Refute that with todays "Restrict religion based on bull****" if you can. Cause that's all it is.

You argued a bull**** line, tht should be reversed.
Click to expand...

You've resorted to name calling because you know the argument is valid.

When the government gives special treatment to any one religious sect, it relegates all other beliefs to second-class status. The founding fathers knew that, too.

(Oh, and "Fact:" many unconstitutional things have happened in Washington over the centuries.)
 
If you are running for office, don't you have to declare which party you belong to? Maybe this is a violation of free speech. Anyway, I have found this discussion fascinating. I don't really want to take sides but it seems like the left is pretty scared of the mainstream media journalists having to declare any affiliation they may have. But, I'm guessing that a certain percentage of them would believe that they are unbiased, even when others would disagree with them.
 
Moderate Right said:
If you are running for office, don't you have to declare which party you belong to? Maybe this is a violation of free speech. Anyway, I have found this discussion fascinating. I don't really want to take sides but it seems like the left is pretty scared of the mainstream media journalists having to declare any affiliation they may have. But, I'm guessing that a certain percentage of them would believe that they are unbiased, even when others would disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Nope: there's no such requirement. Of course, the party as an organization has to disclose who it's raising money for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom