• 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!

What Party would benefit the most if the USSC reversed HELLER

Which Party would benefit most from a reversal of Heller

  • Total voters
    14
TurtleDude said:
Democrats don't seek REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS. everything necessary to punish criminals has been imposed. Given that the INTENTION of the Democrat Party is to incrementally ban guns I reject your silly claims
Click to expand...

Complete bull****.
 
Moot said:
Slippery slope fallacies are a sillier claim to make.

I noticed you voted for the GOP in your poll. Why do you think the GOP would benefit more from a reversal of Heller than democrats?
Click to expand...

If i had to guess, i would think it's based on the provably false assumption that the American public suffers from the paranoid delusion that any challenge to Heller would make all gun owners into enemies of the state :

0c65b1e193ff9b143fd207e2531c5479.jpg


The backlash probably wouldn't be such a big deal.
 
Absentglare said:
If i had to guess, i would think it's based on the provably false assumption that the American public suffers from the paranoid delusion that any challenge to Heller would make all gun owners into enemies of the state :
The backlash probably wouldn't be such a big deal.
Click to expand...

In propaganda terms this is called band waggoning. It is an appeal to popularity to make a point as argument fraud.

All it shows is firearm organisations incredible inability to even bother to correct gun control propaganda. As a firearm owner I am amazed at this utter irresponsibility and dereliction of duty to protect the right that allows the existence of such organisations. They are literally welcoming their own demise and are willing to sacrifice members rights rather than lead and help members retain those rights.

Which if it were not for the grass roots effort and that of thinking individuals gun control would have crushed firearm ownership long ago.
 
TurtleDude said:
Many anti gun advocates are publicly calling for Obama to appoint a justice who would help reverse the Scalia-authored decision of Heller which held that the second amendment guarantees and recognizes an individual right unrelated to militia membership

if such a reversal were to take place, which Party do you think would benefit as a result?
Click to expand...

It would harm both by demonstrating disregard of the Constitution. This reduces the legitimacy of a political system especially, where the disregard is in an area, where the safty of the citizens is at stake and the government cannot factually or believably guarantee the citizens' security.
 
Casper said:
No one would win, some people would lose their Rights and others would learn after the fact that believing ones own propaganda does not equate to actual results. Neither side will ever back down, but I would highly suggest to anyone that wants to exercise their Rights that they do so before Jan of 2017, after that the odds of one being able to purchase AR's, high capacity mags and ammo to fill them may become highly expensive if they can purchase them at all. I recall the last "ban", it did nothing to reduce crime but it did result in a high capacity mag that might normally go for $15-35 selling for up to $100. I am ready this time, bough,t and still buying, mags for my "arsenal" (LOL), plus more of that evil ammo to fill those mags many times over and heck I might grab another AR or so to make that "arsenal" more well rounded, never owned a Mini 14, maybe now is a good time to add one, and I can always use another 7.62 AR. Get ready folks, it is going to get bumpy on the Rights verses Government ride, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Click to expand...

Casper, forget the ARs...grab as many bricks of .22LR as you can possibly load in your truck.
(you know what I mean)
 
Crimefree said:
In propaganda terms this is called band waggoning. It is an appeal to popularity to make a point as argument fraud.

All it shows is firearm organisations incredible inability to even bother to correct gun control propaganda. As a firearm owner I am amazed at this utter irresponsibility and dereliction of duty to protect the right that allows the existence of such organisations. They are literally welcoming their own demise and are willing to sacrifice members rights rather than lead and help members retain those rights.

Which if it were not for the grass roots effort and that of thinking individuals gun control would have crushed firearm ownership long ago.
Click to expand...

I expect you to be able to read.

Please read TD's initial argument- that the backlash from overturning Heller would help the GOP more than the democrats.

If you are still confused about how popularity can be relevant there, i cannot help you.
 
TurtleDude said:
Many anti gun advocates are publicly calling for Obama to appoint a justice who would help reverse the Scalia-authored decision of Heller which held that the second amendment guarantees and recognizes an individual right unrelated to militia membership

if such a reversal were to take place, which Party do you think would benefit as a result?
Click to expand...

This cannot take place unless firearm owners sit on their bum. Oh! my apology that's right most will as it is to much bother to object and our right are not worth the effort. It really is about time firearm owners stopped supporting gun control and startrd protecting their rights
 
Absentglare said:
I expect you to be able to read.

Please read TD's initial argument- that the backlash from overturning Heller would help the GOP more than the democrats.

If you are still confused about how popularity can be relevant there, i cannot help you.
Click to expand...

I know this is impossible for gun control advocates but try and comprehend. Let me help help you with reading and comprehension.

Lets do this with a paint by numbers thing so you can understand.

Originally Posted by Absentglare
If i had to guess, i would think it's based on the provably false assumption that the American public suffers from the paranoid delusion that any challenge to Heller would make all gun owners into enemies of the state :
Click to expand...

An appeal to popularity. No evidence or reasoning of this claimed proof, which without defines this as propaganda since you will never provide this proof.

In propaganda terms this is called band waggoning. It is an appeal to popularity to make a point as argument fraud.

The backlash probably wouldn't be such a big deal.
Click to expand...

An appeal to popularity as backlash would be public objection, denouncing it without reason or proof Propaganda.


All it shows is firearm organisations incredible inability to even bother to correct gun control propaganda. As a firearm owner I am amazed at this utter irresponsibility and dereliction of duty to protect the right that allows the existence of such organisations. They are literally welcoming their own demise and are willing to sacrifice members rights rather than lead and help members retain those rights.

Which if it were not for the grass roots effort and that of thinking individuals gun control would have crushed firearm ownership long ago.

See how easy that was
 
Crimefree said:
I know this is impossible for gun control advocates but try and comprehend. Let me help help you with reading and comprehension.

Lets do this with a paint by numbers thing so you can understand.



An appeal to popularity. No evidence or reasoning of this claimed proof, which without defines this as propaganda since you will never provide this proof.

In propaganda terms this is called band waggoning. It is an appeal to popularity to make a point as argument fraud.



An appeal to popularity as backlash would be public objection, denouncing it without reason or proof Propaganda.


All it shows is firearm organisations incredible inability to even bother to correct gun control propaganda. As a firearm owner I am amazed at this utter irresponsibility and dereliction of duty to protect the right that allows the existence of such organisations. They are literally welcoming their own demise and are willing to sacrifice members rights rather than lead and help members retain those rights.

Which if it were not for the grass roots effort and that of thinking individuals gun control would have crushed firearm ownership long ago.

See how easy that was
Click to expand...

Your response is completely nonsensical.
 
disneydude said:
I haven't heard anyone calling for this. Are you sure this isn't just NRA driven paranoia?
Click to expand...

As usual it's just BS:

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...-on-the-nomination-of-judge-merr/209286#myth1

MYTH: Garland's Vote To Rehear A 2007 Case On D.C.'s Handgun Ban Reveals A "Very Liberal View On Gun Rights"

JCN's Severino: Garland's Vote To Rehear A Case On Handgun Restrictions Indicates "He Has A Very Liberal View On Gun Rights." In a March 11 post at National Review's Bench Memos legal blog, the Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino wrote that a vote Garland cast to rehear a 2007 case on Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban disproved Garland's reputation as a "moderate," revealing his "very liberal view on gun rights" because he had agreed with Judge David Tatel, "one of the most liberal judges on the court." She added that his vote signaled a desire to overturn Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the Second Amendment case D.C. v. Heller, which is current precedent for the constitutional scope of gun restrictions:
Click to expand...
 
jet57 said:
As usual it's just BS:

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...-on-the-nomination-of-judge-merr/209286#myth1
Click to expand...

Its not if you properly understood that en banc is used most frequently as a political tool as much as a legal one.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...tics+377&key=1475788b4c59175d8c65035cced70913

The Politics of En Banc Review on JSTOR

En banc review of the Heller case would have prevented it from being heard by the Supreme Court and en banc is used to refer it back to the lower court, essentially telling them to do it again because they don't agree with the ruling.
 
Absentglare said:
Your response is completely nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I gave you the opportunity despite my better judgement.

I do not respond to fools who are insufficiently intelligent to determine why they do not understand and express their problem of comprehension. In your case I'll make an exception.

There is no hope for you and deflection is your only desire. A person who did not understand would have pointed to what was not understood and asked questions.

Your response is therefore DELIBERATE AVOIDANCE.

How does it feel to be exposed as not being able to validate your own idiotic assertions when asked?
 
Crimefree said:
I gave you the opportunity despite my better judgement.

I do not respond to fools who are insufficiently intelligent to determine why they do not understand and express their problem of comprehension. In your case I'll make an exception.

There is no hope for you and deflection is your only desire. A person who did not understand would have pointed to what was not understood and asked questions.

Your response is therefore DELIBERATE AVOIDANCE.

How does it feel to be exposed as not being able to validate your own idiotic assertions when asked?
Click to expand...

I think the stupidity of declaring the alleged irrelevance of the relative popularity of a given position within the context of a discussion about the political backlash from that same given position speaks for itself.
 
Absentglare said:
I think the stupidity of declaring the alleged irrelevance of the relative popularity of a given position within the context of a discussion about the political backlash from that same given position speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

And still you have not answered what you were asked. Can you explain why in an intelligent fashion and not like the gibberish above. Or do you just enjoy being called out and unable to produce the goods?

Any minute now you will be bragging to your fellow travellers in the gun control titanic how good debaters they are when not one of them knows what debate is.

See them getting called left right and centre and to a person every one of them resorts to inane response as you do when called to back up claims. Is it so difficult to change your opinion when faced with the facts or give a decent response?
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
I think the stupidity of declaring the alleged irrelevance of the relative popularity of a given position within the context of a discussion about the political backlash from that same given position speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Babbling always babbling. Care to quote WTF you care commenting about. That is how it is done here.
 
Absentglare said:
I think the stupidity of declaring the alleged irrelevance of the relative popularity of a given position within the context of a discussion about the political backlash from that same given position speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

There is no hope for you and deflection is your only desire. A person who did not understand would have pointed to what was not understood and asked questions.

The stupidity of making claims and claiming they are factual without offing either evidence or reasonable logical deductions within the context of debate where any claim is likely to be challenged. The more far fetched and impossible the claim the more likely it will be challenged. Not once has any such challenge been satisfied.
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
There is no hope for you and deflection is your only desire. A person who did not understand would have pointed to what was not understood and asked questions.

The stupidity of making claims and claiming they are factual without offing either evidence or reasonable logical deductions within the context of debate where any claim is likely to be challenged. The more far fetched and impossible the claim the more likely it will be challenged. Not once has any such challenge been satisfied.
Click to expand...

Ironically, you are deflecting.
 
The Constitution loses. What is the judiciary using as the 'guide book' to making, interpreting, or disallowing laws? It certainly isn't The Constitution anymore.
 
cabse5 said:
The Constitution loses. What is the judiciary using as the 'guide book' to making, interpreting, or disallowing laws? It certainly isn't The Constitution anymore.
Click to expand...

The piper plays the tune. They are all government employees. Some the most important who set policy are also government appointed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom