• 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!

Maryland "assault weapon" ban gooing in the toilet maybe?

Paleocon said:
.....
Click to expand...

Circular arguments hold no interest for me, you obviously believe a community could pass whatever laws it wants no matter if they are Constitutional or not, thankfully the US does not operate by your rules and hence why you will never be able to setup your little Kingdom.
 
Paleocon said:
You're going to have to justify that statement. Localities institute all sorts of restrictions that aren't in force statewide (e.g. Alcohol restrictions, noise ordinances).
Click to expand...
Equal Protection, 14th Amendment.
Ask yourself why states cannot ban gay marriage.
 
TOG 6 said:
Equal Protection, 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Hamlet, Line 2.

Please explain how the 14th Amendment prohibits localities from passing ordinances that aren't in force statewide. That's certainly a novel view, and I'm not aware of any legal scholar who's advanced it.

Ask yourself why states cannot ban gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Because the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are evil.
 
Paleocon said:
Because the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are evil.
Click to expand...
Ah...
Thanks for making it clear I need waste no more time with you.
 
Paleocon said:
Hamlet, Line 2.

Please explain how the 14th Amendment prohibits localities from passing ordinances that aren't in force statewide. That's certainly a novel view, and I'm not aware of any legal scholar who's advanced it.



Because the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are evil.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving to me that you are not arguing based on Logical or Constitutional grounds, no more time will be wasted by me attempting discourse with you.
Have a Good Life.
 
Paleocon said:
If the 2nd is supposed to be a limit on government action, then it is perhaps the biggest failure in the history of politics. Widespread gun ownership has unequivocally failed to stop even the most terrible evils from becoming law.
Click to expand...

wrong
 
Paleocon said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Do you really not see the connection between social mores being challengable and social mores changing?



Hitler also believed that the Earth was round, the sky was blue, oxygen is good for you, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west etc.



They did it with homosexuality, they will do it with pedophilia.
Click to expand...

Yes.. the difference was he acted on free speech.. and it contributed to death, rape, infanticide, the killing of unborn children of "unfit parents" and sterilization.

homosexuality between consenting adults is nothing like pedophilia.

At one time interracial marriages were also illegal.. would you prefer to go back to that? Wait.. I think I already know your answer.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yes.. the difference was he acted on free speech.. and it contributed to death, rape, infanticide, the killing of unborn children of "unfit parents" and sterilization.
Click to expand...

Remind me, how did Hitler come to power? And why could an incident during the first war have rendered him incapable of taking power, if it had gone a little bit differently?

homosexuality between consenting adults is nothing like pedophilia.

At one time interracial marriages were also illegal.. would you prefer to go back to that? Wait.. I think I already know your answer.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how irony can fly right over people's heads.

For years we've been hearing from the left that "homophobia" was just like "racism" (which "everyone" agreed was bad approximately 50 years ago). In a few decades, they'll start on insisting that "pedophobia" is just like "homophobia" while the stooges in the GOP will insist that the two is completely different, just as they've protested that "homophobia" and "racism" are different.

If you want to stop the madness, stop agreeing with it.
 
Paleocon said:
Remind me, how did Hitler come to power? And why could an incident during the first war have rendered him incapable of taking power, if it had gone a little bit differently?



It's amazing how irony can fly right over people's heads.

For years we've been hearing from the left that "homophobia" was just like "racism" (which "everyone" agreed was bad approximately 50 years ago). In a few decades, they'll start on insisting that "pedophobia" is just like "homophobia" while the stooges in the GOP will insist that the two is completely different, just as they've protested that "homophobia" and "racism" are different.

If you want to stop the madness, stop agreeing with it.
Click to expand...

you're wrong. try again
 
Paleocon said:
No. If speech is harmful to society it should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

And who gets to determine what is harmful?

Do you not know your history? When people sent other people to jail for daring to speak out against them? Having free speech has been a far bigger benefit to us than when there were no free speech rights.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And who gets to determine what is harmful?

Do you not know your history? When people sent other people to jail for daring to speak out against them? Having free speech has been a far bigger benefit to us than when there were no free speech rights.
Click to expand...

If something is harmful, it's harmful regardless of who acknowledges it to be. Though obviously on a practical level the state must decide what is to be criminalized. For example, heroin is objectively harmful, and it would still be so even if it were legal, and because it's so harmful, it should be illegal.

I don't consider the incarceration of subversives to be bad.
 
Paleocon said:
If something is harmful, it's harmful regardless of who acknowledges it to be. Though obviously on a practical level the state must decide what is to be criminalized. For example, heroin is objectively harmful, and it would still be so even if it were legal, and because it's so harmful, it should be illegal.

I don't consider the incarceration of subversives to be bad.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, "subversives" would be anyone that has even a slightly liberal thought?

And comparing the effects of a physical drug on a physical body to free speech is laughable.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Let me guess, "subversives" would be anyone that has even a slightly liberal thought?
Click to expand...

You were the one who brought up the incarceration of dissidents, I just stated that I view that positively in general whereas you view it negatively in general. I'm not obliged to exhaustively explain everything that you bring up.

And comparing the effects of a physical drug on a physical body to free speech is laughable.
Click to expand...

in the sense that you have no logical response, so you laugh to cover this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom