• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

Boo Radley said:
That's a problem with the penalty. The problem he had has driving around with all those weapons.
Click to expand...




now you are being painfully ignorant. "all those weapons"? he had a single pistol in a locked container with the ammo in a separate box.



You are dishonest, and a waste of time man, just when I thought you would be reasonable, you show your true colors. Posters like you have no balls to post your true stances and hide behind insipid and vauge language in order to hide your true beliefs...


Jeesh I respect open gun grabbers more than I do you, at least they have the balls to say what they feel. You not so much.
 
Boo Radley said:
Apparently there was a law against it. Agree with it or not, he shoudl eb aware of the law. Secondly, I have heard no argument that this was job related. If it were, the court case might have gone differently. Who knows. We can't just make up excuses for him. Nor do I think it is oppressive so say don't drive around with a bunch of guns in your trunk. Seems like something most wouldn't be doing anyway.
Click to expand...



really dude, you should read up on the whole of the case, your ignorance on the topic is astounding given the ease you form a position on this case.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
really dude, you should read up on the whole of the case, your ignorance on the topic is astounding given the ease you form a position on this case.
Click to expand...

I did ask you for calrification. I suspect you know about the case, so please do inform.
 
Boo Radley said:
Apparently there was a law against it. Agree with it or not, he shoudl eb aware of the law. Secondly, I have heard no argument that this was job related. If it were, the court case might have gone differently. Who knows. We can't just make up excuses for him. Nor do I think it is oppressive so say don't drive around with a bunch of guns in your trunk. Seems like something most wouldn't be doing anyway.
Click to expand...

If its a blatant violation of the constitution then he has no obligation to follow that unconstitutional law. The 2nd amendment reads "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". Which means that not only does the government have no business infringing on his right to own arms the government has no business infringing on his right to transports his firearms.
 
jamesrage said:
If its a blatant violation of the constitution then he has no obligation to follow that unconstitutional law. The 2nd amendment reads "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". Which means that not only does the government have no business infringing on his right to own arms the government has no business infringing on his right to transports his firearms.
Click to expand...

How so? Doesn't the second amendment say well regulated?
 
liblady said:
what does that have to do with this? nothing.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. I'll repeat myself: just because a law exists, doesn't mean that it is right. In the little town I grew up near, there is a law still on the books--it isn't enforced obviously--that makes it illegal for more than three blacks to congregate on public property. Should they start enforcing that law? I mean, it's the law. Right?
 
Moderator's Warning:
There has been one warning in this thread already. Now there are two. Any further infractions will lead to Thread Bans.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
In order for a well-regulated militia to exist, private citizens need to have the freedom to own military weapons.
Click to expand...

That is one way to look at it, if we were actually looking at like or forefathers did. But that isn't really the case today. Believe it or not, times do change. However, the point is, guns can be regulated and not violate the second amendment.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, the reason for people having the right to bear arms. But those words allow for regulation.
Click to expand...


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.



Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Click to expand...


Seriously, WRONG. /facepalm
 
Boo Radley said:
However, the point is, guns can be regulated and not violate the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not if those regulations prevent civilians from upholding their duty as the militia-- as is the case today.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Is your google broken?


Brian Aitken's Mistake - Reason Magazine



that's two links I've given you. Perhaps you'll read this one before opening your mouth.
Click to expand...

Your first link told me very little. Actually, next to nothing. The second gives more, and seems to suggest the judge was at fault and not the law. He met the exemption, but the judge didn't allow the testimoney. This too is a different problem.
 
Boo Radley said:
There is no militia today, so effectively moot.
Click to expand...

There is a militia as long as there are free citizens. Whether or not that militia is particularly effective is up for debate, but if it is not, the blame for it can be laid directly at the feet of the people who have been lax in their preparations-- and the political class which has deprived them of much of their ability to do so.
 
Boo Radley said:
How so? Doesn't the second amendment say well regulated?
Click to expand...

Notice it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ". It does not say "A well regulated the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A well regulated mailitia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are two separate rights. Just like freedom speech, Free press,religion, peaceful assemblies or petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances are all separate of each other.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your first link told me very little. Actually, next to nothing. The second gives more, and seems to suggest the judge was at fault and not the law. He met the exemption, but the judge didn't allow the testimoney. This too is a different problem.
Click to expand...



we've already been warned, so I'll just /facepalm.....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
RE-education:


Click to expand...


Those guys are great. No wholey accurate but great. I have before and can again if you need it link thosen with credentials who disagree. We can do that. Just let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom