• 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!

Inside the Newsroom: Case for gun-permit listings trumps emotional opposition

This law or proposed law is nothing but utter BS!
Whats next, will I have to wear a yellow patch on my clothing?
 
Didn't lose the argument at all. If it is illegal for them to do it, you should be able to sue correct?

You are the one that FAILS since it isn't illegal to do.

Go troll elsewhere.





A fit? Really? You lost the argument. You made nonsensical hypocritical statments, and you resorted to the TNE© system of debate, and that is to troll with inane comments.
 
This law or proposed law is nothing but utter BS!
Whats next, will I have to wear a yellow patch on my clothing?
I'm sure there are liberals out there that think -all- gun owners should have to do this.

Its amazing how narrow the right to privacy really is...
 
A fit? Really? You lost the argument. You made nonsensical hypocritical statments, and you resorted to the TNE© system of debate, and that is to troll with inane comments.

Sorry but you fail again, go troll elsewhere.

It isn't illegal. But please keep throwing your mantrum.
 
Sorry but you fail again, go troll elsewhere.

It isn't illegal. But please keep throwing your mantrum.




How is it not illegal? Please by all means tell me how someone did not violate the privacy act I linked to.


Also please explain why you have no issue with this, but have issues with criminal's names being released.


Go ahead, I would love to hear you intelligently explain this.


Stop with the fail. Thanks! :2wave:
 
Naw, I say we publish the list of parents that don't spank their children next.

Good point Ikari
It makes you wonder how far some people will go.

Maybe we can force people who've served in the Military wear a patch as well.
After all they could be dangerous.
 
Last edited:
How is it not illegal? Please by all means tell me how someone did not violate the privacy act I linked to.


Also please explain why you have no issue with this, but have issues with criminal's names being released.


Go ahead, I would love to hear you intelligently explain this.


Stop with the fail. Thanks! :2wave:

Either put up or shut up. It is in effect RIGHT NOW, so if it is illegal, then you should be able to take them to court to stop it.

The problem is you like spouting off it is illegal, yet don't prove otherwise.

YOU FAIL, now go troll elsewhere you lost, now go lick your wounds.

Quit acting like a 5 year old going "Nuh uh", it is legal.
 
How is it not illegal? Please by all means tell me how someone did not violate the privacy act I linked to.


Also please explain why you have no issue with this, but have issues with criminal's names being released.


Go ahead, I would love to hear you intelligently explain this.


Stop with the fail. Thanks! :2wave:

If it isn't legal how is it state law and how are they able to enforce this? I'm just saying, I don't agree with it at all just as much as you don't, but it's not as if this is just some random group of people trying to enforce something that isn't law.
 
If it isn't legal how is it state law and how are they able to enforce this? I'm just saying, I don't agree with it at all just as much as you don't, but it's not as if this is just some random group of people trying to enforce something that isn't law.

It will be shot down in court if not the SC.
You can bet someone is writing a suit against the law as we speak.
 
If it isn't legal how is it state law and how are they able to enforce this? I'm just saying, I don't agree with it at all just as much as you don't, but it's not as if this is just some random group of people trying to enforce something that isn't law.




do we ever do things or pass laws that later turn out to be illegal?

Take a look at my link to the 1974 privacy act.


If I was on that list, I sure as hell would be calling for someones head.
 
It will be shot down in court if not the SC.
You can bet someone is writing a suit against the law as we speak.

Good and I hope it happens soon. It's absurd.
 
do we ever do things or pass laws that later turn out to be illegal?

Take a look at my link to the 1974 privacy act.


If I was on that list, I sure as hell would be calling for someones head.

Which is why it will probably be overturned soon (hopefully).
 
Either put up or shut up. It is in effect RIGHT NOW, so if it is illegal, then you should be able to take them to court to stop it.


I guess you are ignorant to how the law works. I would have to be on that list to have legal standing to bring forth a lawsuit.

I am sorry you do not understand even the most basic of legal tennants in this great country.


The problem is you like spouting off it is illegal, yet don't prove otherwise.


I did. I provided a link to what law was broken. I am sorry you don't like facts and links. I can't help those who choose to remain blind.


YOU FAIL, now go troll elsewhere you lost, now go lick your wounds.

Quit acting like a 5 year old going "Nuh uh", it is legal.



How did I lose? What did you prove? What links have you provided to your "argument", and I use that term very loosley.....



Now please stop avoiding my question:


Also please explain why you have no issue with this, but have issues with criminal's names being released.
 
Last edited:
I guess you are ignorant to how the law works. I would have to be on that list to have legal standing to bring forth a lawsuit.
I am sorry you do not understand even the most basic of legal tennants in this great country.
I did. I provided a link to what law was broken. I am sorry you don't like facts and links. I can't help those who choose to remain blind.
How did I lose? What did you prove? What links have you provided to your "argument", and I use that term very loosley.....
Now please stop avoiding my question:
Also please explain why you have no issue with this, but have issues with criminal's names being released.

HEY where is your patch? Did you get the memo?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057927450-post56.html


50 lashes!
 
Making the fact you can carry a concealed weapon public, does not infringe on your right to own a weapon.

At no point does it stop you from owning one.

Your right from a dry perspective but it serves no purpose.

Why would anyone need to know you have a firearm?

An infringement isn't necessarily a restriction either, the purpose could be to dissuade people from owning one based on social stigmas attached there in.

Since it isn't illegal for someone not to like you carrying firearms then it can be an infringement because people can treat you differently.
 
Your right from a dry perspective but it serves no purpose.
Publising the names of those that have abortions -also- does not infringe on the right to same.

The question is if you have the right to exercise your rights in private.
 
Publising the names of those that have abortions -also- does not infringe on the right to same.

The question is if you have the right to exercise your rights in private.

You do.

Is it reasonable to search and seize information on someones personal affairs to appeal to the emotions of do gooders.

Of course it isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom