• 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!

Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban[W:190]

Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Absentglare said:
It's not really my problem if you can't deal with the fact that guns are used in 100% of gun related crimes which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that gun crimes can absolutely be curtailed by at least some forms of gun control.
Click to expand...

Again the fallacy of "gun crimes"..

Completely invalid.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

BretJ said:
BD, I hate to say it but the logic of his statement is 100% correct. Irrelevant in the big picture but logically correct. It's like saying alcohol is used in 100% of all alcohol related crimes which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that alcohol related crime can absolutely be curtailed by at least some forms of Prohibition. The logic only appeals to people who don't recognize it as vacuous. It replaces a more difficult question that many seem to want to avoid. Criminals are responsible for 100% of criminal related gun crimes/Lawful owners are responsible for 0% of criminal related gun crimes. How do we insure criminals are curtailed without lumping 120,000,000 lawful owners in with the asshats that make up less than .0001% of the total population..
Click to expand...

It may not be relevant to policy, but it is relevant to the policy discussion.

Why? Because some people deny that gun control can ever have any impact on violent crime. That's just not true.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Black Dog said:
Interesting. This makes no sense at all. And feel free to point out where I appealed to Hitler. Or that I said anything about ignoring tragedies and emotions.

I am done with this.

Have a good one.
Click to expand...

Well, you have a good one, too.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Absentglare said:
It may not be relevant to policy, but it is relevant to the policy discussion.

Why? Because some people deny that gun control can ever have any impact on violent crime. That's just not true.
Click to expand...

With that I can agree partially. The logic that guns are used in gun related crime is logically sound but pointless and really does not say anything new but it certainly sounds dramatic when appealing to emotion. 100% of individuals injured by seatbelts were wearing seatbelts. 100% of people who have died in parachute accidents were wearing parachutes. Oh no! What are we going to do about killer parachutes and seatbelts!

The question should be is how to do so without impacting the rights of millions of honest people.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

jonny5 said:
Through the constitutional process of amending the constitution. Until then, the 2nd is supreme.
Click to expand...

If that were true, the People wouldn't be sovereign. They would be subject to a document. Is that what you mean?
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Joe Steel said:
If that were true, the People wouldn't be sovereign. They would be subject to a document. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

When they voluntarily enter into a contract, they are subject to its rules, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom