• 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!

High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices [W:76]

Oh dear another gun control advocate who needs a lot of dots or thought he found a bolt hole.

WTF did you post on?





What would be the correct response to a law that does nothing and only a complete idiot would suggest some remedy can be made?

Want to try again and again until you do answer or are you going to admit there is no need for this stupid law? No need for discussing any remedy as all of them already exist. Why did you not see that?


Read the article.............


BTW

I never took a position on this......and resent being called names
 
Read the article.............


BTW

I never took a position on this......and resent being called names

do you deny being an anti gun rights poster?
 
So you are unable to explain how you came to a particular opinion. Did you base this opinion using a rational thought process? If you cannot rationaly support your premise/opinion then just say so.

Anything else?
 
Anyone who believes it is safer to... take a gun out of its holster, chamber check, check magazine, chamber check, place gun in vehicle (in sight of anyone around), do your business, return to vehicle, retrieve gun (in view of all), chamber check, magazine check, reload gun, chamber check, magazine check, replace in holster...rather than to simply keep it concealed has never properly handled a gun before. The key word is concealed. If you have a handgun and are going through the effort of taking it to a location where you feel the need to carry, simply keep it concealed. (Unless, of course, you are concerned about setting off a security alarm.) I would rather take my chances with the law rather than get shot by someone "going postal."



Off subject...............read the article
 
I am a Second Amendment adherent...........who believes in our country's tradition of rule of law.........

How about you?

The second amendment is a blanket prohibition on federal encroachment or action concerning private citizens keeping and bearing arms. If you support federal gun control laws, You are not a second amendment adherent.
 
Has there been a rash of shootings at the post office? Me thinks not. Did a law prevent it? Me thinks not. Useless law. Period.
 
Has anyone ever conducted a study and asked those that committed mass shootings if there had been a law would they have not committed their acts? Oh wait, never mind there are already laws against committing mass murder, who would have thought.......................
 
The second amendment is a blanket prohibition on federal encroachment or action concerning private citizens keeping and bearing arms. If you support federal gun control laws, You are not a second amendment adherent.

NO............Then can it be said you do not believe in the rule of law? I would proffer........NO

If you did you would know SCOTUS Heller majority decision written by Scalia states the government has the right/duty to enact reasonable gun use and ownership requirements...........

So it would seem.......given what you say.........you do not believe in our country's tradition of the rule of law........

If so.......what then do you believe in?
 
Has anyone ever conducted a study and asked those that committed mass shootings if there had been a law would they have not committed their acts? Oh wait, never mind there are already laws against committing mass murder, who would have thought.......................

when Bannites claim laws that prescribe punishments less than Death or LWOP, to stop people from committing crimes that are punished by death or LWOP (or pseudo life sentences such as 30+ years) , you have to know the Bannites are either dishonest, ignorant or both

none of them can ever tell us who a law that makes it illegal for them to have a gun, buy a gun, buy ammo, have a magazine of X amount of rounds will stop them when laws against robbery or murder don't
 
NO............Then can it be said you do not believe in the rule of law? I would proffer........NO

If you did you would know SCOTUS Heller majority decision written by Scalia states the government has the right/duty to enact reasonable gun use and ownership requirements...........

So it would seem.......given what you say.........you do not believe in our country's tradition of the rule of law........

If so.......what then do you believe in?

You are demonstrating you have no understanding of how to read a supreme court case

what FEDERAL laws that restrict people who have not-through due process-lost their constitutional rights, did HELLER UPHOLD

and BTW I reject Scalia's faint hearted originalism where he is afraid to strike down the expansion of the commerce clause because he is worried that doing so would cause social upheaval as unconstitutional laws like Title VII and Social security would be vaporized
 
You are demonstrating you have no understanding of how to read a supreme court case

what FEDERAL laws that restrict people who have not-through due process-lost their constitutional rights, did HELLER UPHOLD

and BTW I reject Scalia's faint hearted originalism where he is afraid to strike down the expansion of the commerce clause because he is worried that doing so would cause social upheaval as unconstitutional laws like Title VII and Social security would be vaporized



That is not an answer to the question I asked you...............Why are you trying to duck it and change the subject?
 
That is not an answer to the question I asked you...............Why are you trying to duck it and change the subject?

what.................question



....................did you

ask.............that you could ........................not

under..........stand

..............................................the edification....

I provided to


you.......
 
U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws | Reuters
U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws


“A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered a lower court judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging gun control laws approved by Colorado in the wake of a movie theater massacre in a Denver suburb, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.

The measures, which passed the Colorado legislature and were signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, in 2013 were considered a victory by gun-control activists in a state where gun ownership is treasured.

The legislation was prompted by the July 2012 shooting rampage at a midnight shooting of a "Batman" movie in Aurora that killed 12 people and the slaying later that year of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut.

The laws, which banned ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds and required universal background checks for gun buyers, prompted a fierce backlash from critics that led to voters recalling two key Democratic members of the state legislature….


The court is following the law as defined by Heller…………….

Reasonable gun safety and control laws are appropriate and do not violate 2nd Amendment…………

Now as understand it……… You have an issue with this as the law of the land!
 
U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws | Reuters
U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws


“A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered a lower court judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging gun control laws approved by Colorado in the wake of a movie theater massacre in a Denver suburb, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.

The measures, which passed the Colorado legislature and were signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, in 2013 were considered a victory by gun-control activists in a state where gun ownership is treasured.

The legislation was prompted by the July 2012 shooting rampage at a midnight shooting of a "Batman" movie in Aurora that killed 12 people and the slaying later that year of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut.

The laws, which banned ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds and required universal background checks for gun buyers, prompted a fierce backlash from critics that led to voters recalling two key Democratic members of the state legislature….


The court is following the law as defined by Heller…………….

Reasonable gun safety and control laws are appropriate and do not violate 2nd Amendment…………

Now as understand it……… You have an issue with this as the law of the land!

thanks for proving you do not support the second amendment. But we knew that already.

How does a court pretend that the second amendment ceases to exist after a certain number of rounds now that the second amendment has been applied to the states?
 
thanks for proving you do not support the second amendment. But we knew that already.

How does a court pretend that the second amendment ceases to exist after a certain number of rounds now that the second amendment has been applied to the states?

:roll:
 

I really didn't expect you to understand the point. but if you think its great for state governments to ban stuff like normal capacity magazines, you really don't believe in the second amendment as it has been applied to the several states. You're pretty much a hard core member of the Bannite movement

you do realize how moronic state bans on magazines are don't you?
 
Off subject...............read the article

Only if your OP was off subject.

".......... but they will go a long way to prevent "accidents" imyoda

Anyone who believes it is safer (that is, prevent accidents) to... take a gun out of its holster, chamber check, unload gun, chamber check, place gun in vehicle (in sight of anyone around), do your business, return to vehicle, retrieve gun (in view of all), chamber check, magazine check, reload gun, chamber check, magazine check, replace in holster...rather than to simply keep it concealed has never properly handled a gun before. The key word is concealed. If you have a handgun and are going through the effort of taking it to a location where you feel the need to carry, simply keep it concealed. (Unless, of course, you are concerned about setting off a security alarm.) I would rather take my chances with the law rather than get shot by someone "going postal."
 
Only if your OP was off subject.

".......... but they will go a long way to prevent "accidents" imyoda

Anyone who believes it is safer (that is, prevent accidents) to... take a gun out of its holster, chamber check, unload gun, chamber check, place gun in vehicle (in sight of anyone around), do your business, return to vehicle, retrieve gun (in view of all), chamber check, magazine check, reload gun, chamber check, magazine check, replace in holster...rather than to simply keep it concealed has never properly handled a gun before. The key word is concealed. If you have a handgun and are going through the effort of taking it to a location where you feel the need to carry, simply keep it concealed. (Unless, of course, you are concerned about setting off a security alarm.) I would rather take my chances with the law rather than get shot by someone "going postal."


In any event..........all you need to do to be safe.............Leave your gun at home when going to the Post Office..................then there's no worry about getting arrested
 
In any event..........all you need to do to be safe.............Leave your gun at home when going to the Post Office..................then there's no worry about getting arrested

all well and good unless some active shooter decides to attack a post office figuring he won't meet armed resistance.
 
I really didn't expect you to understand the point. but if you think its great for state governments to ban stuff like normal capacity magazines, you really don't believe in the second amendment as it has been applied to the several states. You're pretty much a hard core member of the Bannite movement

you do realize how moronic state bans on magazines are don't you?



:violin :screwy :bon_voyag
 
all well and good unless some active shooter decides to attack a post office figuring he won't meet armed resistance.



Please stop.............with those little boy hero dreams.....................
 
Please stop.............with those little boy hero dreams.....................

Please stop with the Bannite nonsense. facts......not friendly..........................to gun hating Liberals


..................claiming to be



...........conservative
 
Back
Top Bottom