• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

Death of Scalia Puts Court's Gun Stance into Question

TurtleDude said:
Portman was actually looking bad a few months ago. now looking better

Strickland is as pro gun as Portman-maybe more so
Click to expand...

Should candidates reflect what their constituents think, one way or the other, or what they think in regards to the Constitution.

Nominating Lynch as a political pawn to get out the Senatorial vote in NH, NC, FL, NV, WI, PA, IL, IN just two withdraw her after those mean old GOPs trash her is one option. Then he could nominate Sri2, acknowledging Haymarket's coinage, and appoint him next winter in recess ifr the Senate doesn't act.

How do you define Justice Scalia's "originalism" ?
 
NIMBY said:
Should candidates reflect what their constituents think, one way or the other, or what they think in regards to the Constitution.

Nominating Lynch as a political pawn to get out the Senatorial vote in NH, NC, FL, NV, WI, PA, IL, IN just two withdraw her after those mean old GOPs trash her is one option. Then he could nominate Sri2, acknowledging Haymarket's coinage, and appoint him next winter in recess ifr the Senate doesn't act.

How do you define Justice Scalia's "originalism" ?
Click to expand...


"faint hearted"
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
That might have something to do with Clinton declaring gun control the top issue priority of her campaign. It's easy to scare people into believing they're coming for your guns when it's true.
Click to expand...

Add to that the possibility of an open SCOTUS seat, Scalia's no less, and it's easy to see how GOP turnout will be off the charts.
 
calamity said:
Add to that the possibility of an open SCOTUS seat, Scalia's no less, and it's easy to see how GOP turnout will be off the charts.
Click to expand...

Except they'll vote for trump a known liberal.
 
TurtleDude said:
how many dead people do you think would be the cost of such a stupid proposal?

but thanks for admitting you really are a gun confiscator and banner.
Click to expand...

Hey sue me I like ironic monuments.
 
Soho gator said:
Except they'll vote for trump a known liberal.
Click to expand...

If he wins the R nod, I would not be surprised to see him turn sharply Left, especially on guns and abortion.


...and big government.


But, he will probably remain consistent on immigration.
 
calamity said:
Add to that the possibility of an open SCOTUS seat, Scalia's no less, and it's easy to see how GOP turnout will be off the charts.
Click to expand...

Hell, it's enough that I am considering voting GOP if Sanders doesn't win the Democratic nomination. And if Sanders keeps trying to catch up with Hillary on guns, I might do so regardless.
 
Moot said:
The citizens have a constitutional right to have the government provide for their safety and justice. If guns are public safety hazard then the government has constitutional authority to regulate them. There's nothing in the second amendment that prevents the government from regulating firearms if they pose a public safety hazard. The whole point of the second amendment was to provide defense for the whole people. An individual right does not supersede the collective right of the whole people.
Click to expand...
Utter and complete nonsense. Shall not be infringed, is shall not be infringed. You want to abolish the second amendment, fine. Then set about attempting to do so. But you lose all credibility when you make silly arguments, like you have done here. Using your "logic", any and all constitutional rights could be usurped. But that's your point, isn't it? It may fool your fellow drones, but thinking people see right through the ruse.
 
TurtleDude said:
"faint hearted"
Click to expand...

So is it Strickland or Portman with you?

AND, I don't recall any outbursts against Kasich by your front-runner.

I am back to undecided as far as which primary to vote in here.

While feeling that the only way BS or HRC can win is with the other on their ticket.

"perpetuation of racial entitlement" voting rights argument by Justice Scalia;
"Blacks should go to slower track schools" affirmative action Scalia comment .
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Hell, it's enough that I am considering voting GOP if Sanders doesn't win the Democratic nomination. And if Sanders keeps trying to catch up with Hillary on guns, I might do so regardless.
Click to expand...

And if Sen. Sanders is HRC's VP ?
 
NIMBY said:
So is it Strickland or Portman with you?

AND, I don't recall any outbursts against Kasich by your front-runner.

I am back to undecided as far as which primary to vote in here.

While feeling that the only way BS or HRC can win is with the other on their ticket.

"perpetuation of racial entitlement" voting rights argument by Justice Scalia;
"Blacks should go to slower track schools" affirmative action Scalia comment .
Click to expand...

I actually gave Strickland's opponent in the primary some bucks-he's the son of family friends-VERY CLOSE family friends. I won't ever support him again when he started pandering to the gun banners. I voted for Strickland when he ran for office and again when he lost to Kasich. Portman is a personal friend whose family was as close to ours as the other guy I referenced. SO I will vote for Portman. But I won't get puked out if Ted wins.
 
Kobie said:
What about them?
Click to expand...

Along with Ted Kennedy challenging his sitting President Carter, a split DEM party.

Today, we saw something HRC and BS could agree on--that Justice Scalia should have a replacement.

Not so much HRC's supporters, IMHO, but BS's supporters will simply stay home as they did in 2010 and 2014 if he doesn't get the nomination .
 
countryboy said:
Utter and complete nonsense. Shall not be infringed, is shall not be infringed. You want to abolish the second amendment, fine. Then set about attempting to do so. But you lose all credibility when you make silly arguments, like you have done here. Using your "logic", any and all constitutional rights could be usurped. But that's your point, isn't it? It may fool your fellow drones, but thinking people see right through the ruse.
Click to expand...

That's stupid. To "keep and bear arms" doesn't mean they can't be "well regulated".
 
Kobie said:
No chance.
Click to expand...

Without the other, neither can win the other's constituency in the general.

I'm reminded of Reagan choosing "voodoo" Bush-41 .
 
MorrisDay said:
Violent criminals are the public safety issue that needs addressing.
Click to expand...

liberal democrat pimps in office who tell the sheeple that gun control is crime control are the ones who cause public safety issues because they are giving the public a placebo to cure a disease they don't want cured. Democrats are enablers of violent street criminals and Democrats don't want to really crack down on that lest supporters of criminals punish them in the polls
 
Soho gator said:
But even in the unhinged Heller decision the court noted the place of reasonable restrictions. With another centrist jurist we can count on those being articulated and implemented.
Click to expand...

reasonable restrictions

a ban on felons etc from owning guns

state restrictions on where you can use guns

those are "reasonable


the crap you push are disgusting punitive attacks on lawful gun owners-not reasonable and not constitutional
 
FeistyBroad said:
Is that so? I know for a fact that you can obtain a gun in Texas legally with a felony conviction from another state. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Click to expand...

and you will do 5-11 years in federal prison if you are caught with a firearm and the US Attorney for the district you are caught in decides to prosecute you. Its as close to a "strict liability" offense there is.

are you a felon?
do you possess a firearm

if so-you go to jail unless you can prove the very difficult claim you obtained a firearm because you had to defend yourself against a clear and present threat of death or severe bodily injury
 
Crovax said:
Felons in pretty much every state can petition to get thier gun rights back.
Click to expand...

and the ATF almost never agrees to that. even if the state restores your rights, the federal ban still applies
 
Soho gator said:
Yes it acknowledges there must be restrictions. So lets get about restricting!
Click to expand...

as usual you confuse state vs federal regulations. nothing in Heller supports stuff like "assault weapon bans" at a federal level or magazine restrictions either
 
Crovax said:
Now I know you are trolling.

You are seriously saying that something like restriction of the 4th amendment like the NSA was doing for national security reasons has no public safety impact.

Also you might want to read up on Brandenburg v Ohio and the Skokie march as the 1st amendments possible impact on public saftey.
Click to expand...

If you read all of his posts on guns what you see is that he dislikes the politics he perceives gun owners as supporting and he wants to pass laws designed to harass honest gun owners

He even admits that

public safety has nothing to do with his desire to harass lawful gun owners
 
Moot said:
None of those amendments protects an individual right to threaten public safety or national security.
Click to expand...

which has nothing to do with second amendment rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom