• 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!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

TurtleDude said:
registration is the tool that facilitates confiscation. every group or individual that wants confiscation supports registration. Most of those groups or people also deny that they want confiscation because that would cause even simple minded sheep to oppose their preliminary schemes.

registration serves no useful purpose and many nefarious ones./ If you support registration you support or promote the path towards confiscation even if that is not your current intent
Click to expand...

Imagine having to register your religion or political opinion under threat of imprisonment.
 
Jerry said:
Imagine having to register your religion or political opinion under threat of imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Imagine having to get a license to have an abortion.
 
Goobieman said:
Imagine having to get a license to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

ask any NARAL activist or Feminist what the purpose of a 24 waiting period is before having an abortion is? EVERYONE OF THEM will claim it is nothing more than an incremental attempt to ban abortion

ask MOST of them what a 24 hour waiting period is designed to do in terms of buying a gun and they will deny it is an attempt to infringe on gun rights
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
I am a Liberal, and I agree with the ruling in question.
Click to expand...

cool, you agree with us real liberals on that issue then

real liberalism is what motivated t he founders

curently real liberals are called Libertarians
 
I thought Obama was gonna come and get all our guns?
 
Goobieman said:
He will, the moment He thinks He can.
Click to expand...

one of the main parts of the ARC playbook is to constantly deny that ARCs really want to ban guns. Anyone who claims that confiscation or bans is a desire of the gun haters is ridiculed as being paranoid. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. In 1992 we had a ticket that featured a guy who claimed to like duck hunting (as opposed to pursuing "*****") and another guy who once had been an A rated Senator from a gun friendly state. Yet those two, once elected. pushed through a gun ban and a waiting period as well as appointing two USSC justices who hate guns and one claims that inalienable rights should be modified based on current crime statistics.

THen in 2008 we had another ticket that featured two senators that both were F rated gun haters. One had voted for every gun ban or idiotic restrictions upon gun owners that had come before the senate for three decades and the other had admitted he favored complete bans on handguns and all semi autos

and yet the Obama apologists claim we are paranoid to think the Obama-Biden ticket somehow might try to pass the same stuff that clinton gore did.

Oh and don't forget that CLinton's SOTH was another NRA A rated congressman versus F-Nancy Pelosi

If Obama and his minions thought they could completely ban guns without losing power, they'd do it in a new york second
 
I support this decision.

I mean, the language of the 2nd amendment is pretty clear. I don't get how it can be misinterpreted.
 
Orion said:
I support this decision.

I mean, the language of the 2nd amendment is pretty clear. I don't get how it can be misinterpreted.
Click to expand...

It cannot be-that is why those who hate guns and who have the power to "interpret" what it says go through such machinations to pretend that it says something different that even a 4 year old can figure out.

in this case, the issue was whether the 14th amendment incorporated the second as it does the first and some of the other BOR. Given the language those who pushed the 14th used such as noting that freed slaves could not really be free if they were disarmed, there is absolutely no doubt that the ratifiers and authors of the 14th intended it to incorporate the individual interpretation of the second,.

those who say otherwise are dishonest and there is no possible way to honestly dispute that
 
TurtleDude said:
It cannot be-that is why those who hate guns and who have the power to "interpret" what it says go through such machinations to pretend that it says something different that even a 4 year old can figure out.

in this case, the issue was whether the 14th amendment incorporated the second as it does the first and some of the other BOR. Given the language those who pushed the 14th used such as noting that freed slaves could not really be free if they were disarmed, there is absolutely no doubt that the ratifiers and authors of the 14th intended it to incorporate the individual interpretation of the second,.

those who say otherwise are dishonest and there is no possible way to honestly dispute that
Click to expand...

I would hold a different view if such a law were being debated in Canada. Our laws and constitution are different. But in the context of the U.S., the 2nd amendment is pretty irrefutable.

Now if people could be just as honest with all of the other points in it, like Equal Protection.
 
Orion said:
I would hold a different view if such a law were being debated in Canada. Our laws and constitution are different. But in the context of the U.S., the 2nd amendment is pretty irrefutable.

Now if people could be just as honest with all of the other points in it, like Equal Protection.
Click to expand...

true, we are citizens and you are subjects:mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide
Click to expand...

I know you're copying a headline, however, it must be pointed out that the Constitution guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear arms, and the USSC did nothing but re-affirm what already existed.
 
Orion said:
Now if people could be just as honest with all of the other points in it, like Equal Protection.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

That graduated tax scam is so discriminatory. It clearly violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
It cannot be-that is why those who hate guns and who have the power to "interpret" what it says go through such machinations to pretend that it says something different that even a 4 year old can figure out.

in this case, the issue was whether the 14th amendment incorporated the second as it does the first and some of the other BOR. Given the language those who pushed the 14th used such as noting that freed slaves could not really be free if they were disarmed, there is absolutely no doubt that the ratifiers and authors of the 14th intended it to incorporate the individual interpretation of the second,.

those who say otherwise are dishonest and there is no possible way to honestly dispute that
Click to expand...

Those on the Left claim the 14th incorporates the First Amendment to the States, and hence the athiest assault on religious symbology on religious holidays on state and municipal property.

If the 14th incorporates the First to the states, it must also incorporate all the rest, insofar as it makes sense to do so. Clearly the Founders intended the Second Amendment to be an individual freedom. No one who's read the history can argue otherwise.
 
Tucker Case said:
There were something like 29 shootings in Chicago over the weekend, yet Daley continues to tell us that the ban is working. :roll:
Click to expand...

Way to oversimplify everything that Daly has said about gun regs....

Daly is part of the Mayor's Collation.

The Chicago law will be rewritten within the month. -- I agree there should never have been an all out ban.

California requires a fingerprint to purchase certain types of ammo.-- Chicago should implement that.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I know you're copying a headline, however, it must be pointed out that the Constitution guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear arms, and the USSC did nothing but re-affirm what already existed.
Click to expand...

This is why I think the article title is b.s. How is the S.C. going to extend something we already have?
 
hazlnut said:
Way to oversimplify everything that Daly has said about gun regs....

Daly is part of the Mayor's Collation.

The Chicago law will be rewritten within the month. -- I agree there should never have been an all out ban.

California requires a fingerprint to purchase certain types of ammo.-- Chicago should implement that.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the SC strikes that down too. It would be like requiring a fingerprint to buy a newspaper,bible, protest sign,hire a lawyer and so. Besides that requiring a finger print to buy ammo is not going to help police solve crime.
 
The purpose of all that paperwork and tracking to exercise basic freedoms serves only to weaken those freedoms and empower the government. It has nothing to do with crime solving at all. That's merely an excuse to get the sheep to accept yet another hurdle between them and their freedom, just like those pointless seatbelt laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom