• 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!

A message from a veteran about the AR-15

Benzin388 said:
Lmao. Jokes on him. Sad thing is I'm still encountering these types of people everyday in the service. Just the other day one of my guys was convinced that the government paid terrorists to commit 9-11.

Sent from my XT1030
Click to expand...

That is pathetic.
 
Ganapathy said:
Bill Moyers was a White House press secretary, and is one of the greatest sources on political topics.
Click to expand...

Listening to Moyers is like listening to Obama.
 
Ganapathy said:
The technical term is "overturn." A new gun case will go to the supreme court, and the court will rule that the second amendment doesn't cover the right of civilians unaffiliated with the military to have guns.
Click to expand...
Again it is good of you to make it clear that the Democrats mean to violate our civil rights.

A vote for Trump is a vote to protect our civil rights.


Ganapathy said:
Yes. Heller vs. DC will be overturned, just like Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Click to expand...
You might note that those are cases of "an erroneous ruling that allows rights to be violated" being replaced by "a correct ruling that protects rights".

You are hoping to replace "a correct ruling that protects rights" with an "an erroneous ruling that allows rights to be violated". That would be unprecedented in American history.


Ganapathy said:
Yes. The people currently keep and bear arms through the form of volunteers in the military, who keep and bear arms on behalf of the people as a whole.
Click to expand...
No. Even if we presumed for the sake of argument that your militia fallacy were true, the Framers intended the militia to be the exact opposite of a standing army.

The National Guard claim was goofy enough. To think that the military in general might be what the Second Amendment intended would require violating every single thing that the Framers said they intended.


Ganapathy said:
Don't tell me what the constitution says or doesn't say. When I enlisted into the U.S Army, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. I know what the constitution says, so stop trying to interpret it to fit your twisted reactionary ideas.
Click to expand...
If you understand what it says, why do you keep making weird claims that it means the exact opposite of what it says?


Ganapathy said:
The Second Amendment Was Never Meant to Protect an Individual’s Right to a Gun - BillMoyers.com
Click to expand...
Bill Moyers is lying. There is a long history of case law making it clear that individuals have the right to have guns for self defense.
 
Ganapathy said:
Don't tell me what the constitution says or doesn't say. When I enlisted into the U.S Army, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. I know what the constitution says, so stop trying to interpret it to fit your twisted reactionary ideas.
Click to expand...

I suggest you take time to read the Constitution.
 
I'm still struggling over a fellow vet having a Chairman Mao avatar and how that works.
 
Benzin388 said:
Lmao. Jokes on him. Sad thing is I'm still encountering these types of people everyday in the service. Just the other day one of my guys was convinced that the government paid terrorists to commit 9-11.

Sent from my XT1030
Click to expand...

Wait. They didn't?
 
Ganapathy said:
Don't tell me what the constitution says or doesn't say. When I enlisted into the U.S Army, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. I know what the constitution says, so stop trying to interpret it to fit your twisted reactionary ideas.
Click to expand...
Ummmmmmmm...yeah. That would have been a perfect time to actually read the document. That whole 'enlistment' gig.

Your 'interpretation' of the Constitution is a sad pathetic joke.
 
No doubt the shootings in Orlando would've been better had the guy used a semi-automatic 30.06.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom