• 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?

The question of strict scrutiny is very interesting. That standard applies where fundamental rights are involved, and the Supreme Court made clear in McDonald that the right protected by the Second Amendment is fundamental. It also reiterated that even fundamental rights are absolute. But I think states will have to tread very lightly when they restrict the right to keep and bear arms, just as they do in restricting the freedom of speech, for example.
 
Wow, I thought the thread was going to be about guns and the 2nd A, then a "Conservative" of all People starts off with supporting Fascists, abolishment of the Bill of Rights, especially Free Speech and Gun Ownership and attacking everyone from gays to claiming pedophilia will become accepted. All of-course being total nonsense and supportive of what many Liberals falsely claimed some Conservatives would be like if left with no Constitution and Bill of Rights to bar their way, but here is living proof that they may be right. With Conservatives such as these, thinking as they do and with the far left liberals spouting their PC nonsense as well we no longer need to leave the Nation in search of Enemies to the USA, they are right here among us. We are in deep Poo, another darn good reason to buy and learn to us Firearms, especially those already designed to a degree for war, sooner or later something is going to Snap and it is not going to be pretty.
 
Paleocon said:
I hope it's upheld. Local communities should be able to set their own standards on these issues.
Click to expand...
Why do you think local communities should be able to constitutionally restrict the rights of the law abiding, when all law-abiding people have the same rights?
Do you agree that local communities should be able to, say, restrict abortions?
 
TOG 6 said:
Why do you think local communities should be able to constitutionally restrict the rights of the law abiding, when all law-abiding people have the same rights?
Do you agree that local communities should be able to, say, restrict abortions?
Click to expand...

Palecon is on record demanding the execution of anyone who has or performs an abortion
 
TOG 6 said:
Why do you think local communities should be able to constitutionally restrict the rights of the law abiding, when all law-abiding people have the same rights?
Click to expand...

I don't accept the premise that every law abiding person has a right to be treated equally. Even if it were accepted that all people must be treated equally, it would not follow that every community must be identical.

Do you agree that local communities should be able to, say, restrict abortions?
Click to expand...

I support any possible restriction on abortion.
 
Paleocon said:
I don't accept the premise that every law abiding person has a right to be treated equally.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you. the law ad the constitution disagree.
All else being equal, under the 14th amendment of the constitution, every person in your state has the same rights.
 
TOG 6 said:
Unfortunately for you. the law ad the constitution disagree.
All else being equal, under the 14th amendment of the constitution, every person in your state has the same rights.
Click to expand...

"The law say X therefore the law should say X" is circular reasoning.

But in any case, even with that as a premise, there is no requirement there that every jurisdiction must have the same laws. A locality could apply a law equally to everyone even if another locality had a different law.
 
Paleocon said:
"The law say X therefore the law should say X" is circular reasoning.
But in any case, even with that as a premise, there is no requirement there that every jurisdiction must have the same laws.
Click to expand...
No.... but no part of a state can have laws that limit the rights if a person that other parts of the state do not also limit.
That is, for instance, Toledo cannot ban guns because the 2nd Amendment protects the rights pf the people of the state of Ohio.
 
TOG 6 said:
No.... but no part of a state can have laws that limit the rights if a person that other parts of the state do not also limit.
That is, for instance, Toledo cannot ban guns because the 2nd Amendment protects the rights pf the people of the state of Ohio.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Paleocon said:
Here's a question that goes to more fundamental commitments:

If you knew (assume for the moment that this is in fact true) that continued freedom of speech would lead to pedophilia becoming socially and legally acceptable in a century, would you still support it? If your answer is yes then I think our premises are really TK far apart to have a fruitful discussion.
Click to expand...

If you knew.. that destruction of free speech would lead to pedophilia becoming legally acceptable in a century.. would you still support it?

Because the destruction and restriction of free speech has historically led to more civil rights abuses.. than having free speech.
 
jaeger19 said:
If you knew.. that destruction of free speech would lead to pedophilia becoming legally acceptable in a century.. would you still support it?
Click to expand...

No, but the scenario is patently absurd, given that restrictions on free speech reduce social entropy, rather than increase it.

Because the destruction and restriction of free speech has historically led to more civil rights abuses.. than having free speech.
Click to expand...

The key phrase being "civil rights abuses".

In the coming decades (maybe it'll take a century if we're lucky), the left will start asserting that laws against child molestation are restricting the civil rights of pedophiles, and they'll eventually have them removed. Abolishing free speech could certainly prevent this.
 
Paleocon said:
No, but the scenario is patently absurd, given that restrictions on free speech reduce social entropy, rather than increase it.



The key phrase being "civil rights abuses".

In the coming decades (maybe it'll take a century if we're lucky), the left will start asserting that laws against child molestation are restricting the civil rights of pedophiles, and they'll eventually have them removed. Abolishing free speech could certainly prevent this.
Click to expand...

prove that claim, I call BS on that. abolishing free speech would lead to a violent civil war and that would cause all sorts of "entropy"
 
TurtleDude said:
prove that claim, I call BS on that. abolishing free speech would lead to a violent civil war and that would cause all sorts of "entropy"
Click to expand...

Social mores in 1700 were more like they were in 1200 than 2000.

Why do you think that is?
 
Paleocon said:
Social mores in 1700 were more like they were in 1200 than 2000.

Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

low information voters and citizens
 
Paleocon said:
Which only matters in a mass-democracy like we've had for the last two hundred odd years.
Click to expand...

you still haven't supported your goofy and inane comment that banning free speech decreases social entropy. In this country it would most likely lead to a civil war that would make what happened 150 years ago appear to be a picnic I suspect. No right is more cherished in this nation than that right
 
TurtleDude said:
you still haven't supported your goofy and inane comment that banning free speech decreases social entropy. In this country it would most likely lead to a civil war that would make what happened 150 years ago appear to be a picnic I suspect. No right is more cherished in this nation than that right
Click to expand...

Given that there is more social entropy now then when free speech did not exist, it seems fairly straightforward.

Can you cite any examples where free speech has decreased social entropy!
 
Paleocon said:
Given that there is more social entropy now then when free speech did not exist, it seems fairly straightforward.

Can you cite any examples where free speech has decreased social entropy!
Click to expand...

that is like saying modern medicine has caused social entropy because we now have more social entropy (according to you) then back in the days that the flu and small pox killed millions

same with TV

Transportation (that might have some real validity)

etc etc

your argument FAILS

People could always speak freely in most situations
 
Paleocon said:
No, but the scenario is patently absurd, given that restrictions on free speech reduce social entropy, rather than increase it.



The key phrase being "civil rights abuses".

In the coming decades (maybe it'll take a century if we're lucky), the left will start asserting that laws against child molestation are restricting the civil rights of pedophiles, and they'll eventually have them removed. Abolishing free speech could certainly prevent this.
Click to expand...

Hilter thought the same thing. How well did that work out for peoples freedoms?

and the "left will start asserting laws against child molestation are restricting the civil rights pedophiles"???.. :doh

WTF?
 
TurtleDude said:
that is like saying modern medicine has caused social entropy because we now have more social entropy (according to you) then back in the days that the flu and small pox killed millions

same with TV

Transportation (that might have some real validity)

etc etc

your argument FAILS

People could always speak freely in most situations
Click to expand...

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

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

jaeger19 said:
Hilter thought the same thing.
Click to expand...

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.

and the "left will start asserting laws against child molestation are restricting the civil rights pedophiles"???.. :doh

WTF?
Click to expand...

They did it with homosexuality, they will do it with pedophilia.
 
Paleocon said:
I don't accept the premise that every law abiding person has a right to be treated equally. Even if it were accepted that all people must be treated equally, it would not follow that every community must be identical.



I support any possible restriction on abortion.
Click to expand...

You do know that Federal Law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights override local laws, don't you?
 
Casper said:
You do know that Federal Law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights override local laws, don't you?
Click to expand...

You know that "X is the law therefore X should be the law" is fallacious, right?
 
Paleocon said:
You know that "X is the law therefore X should be the law" is fallacious, right?
Click to expand...

You do know that if a Law is deemed to be Unconstitutional that it will be struck down, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom