• 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!

Thousands Petition To Allow Guns At Republican Convention For ‘Safety’ [UPDATE]

Incase anyone missed it, the petition was started by an ultra liberal - with undoubtedly ulterior motives. I'll try to find the link. I saw it earlier this afternoon on Washington Times.

“It is satire,” Jim tells Newsweek during a phone conversation on Tuesday morning. “The thing I try to be really clear about is: I’m not saying [Republicans] should have guns at their convention while I think they shouldn’t. I think they should have guns at their convention because I think that’s the only way to live in accordance with the principles they have tried to make us all live with.”
. . . Jim, a public health worker who says he is “absolutely” a gun control advocate, is based on the West Coast. He wonders why “the Republicans acquiesce so docilely” to the Secret Service simply denying them the right to have guns at their convention. In the petition, Jim quotes all three Republican candidates—Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich—each of whom have said they’d eliminate “gun-free zones” in areas such as schools and military facilities
 
Last edited:
I was referring to gun control in general. You're new so (welcome), we've had this discussion for a long long time around here. I have used that part of the Heller decision countless times to inform gun advocates that the second amendment is open to gun control, and at every turn, I've been told that I don't get what Scalia was saying and that I'm too dumb to understand the constitution. But, all of a sudden, my own argument makes perfect sense.

Actually no that is a fabrication you have been told those decisions have no power over the constitution. Why? You have been told SCOTUS is an arm of government and has no power to change the constitution. Judges are government employees many government appointed. Judges and government cannot be trusted to obey the constitution. That is why it was written to control them. Thus far that statement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

If judges are so illiterate or government toadies they cannot understand what 27 words mean using a dictionary then perhaps its best that they are not the final authority. I think the founding fathers would turn over in their grave if they heard your pronouncements.

Do try to be honest.
 
The only paradox here is your dishonest straw man. Just like your appeal to emotion that you ran away from in the other thread.

No one is falling for your bait and switch.

I'm reminded of the lesson of such foolish statements. A man takes a bucket and dips it into the sea. Looking in he sees nothing but sea water and proclaims look no fish in the bucket, there are no fish in the sea.

Argument by extension.
 
Thanks for the welcome :)

And I understand the difficult of talking about gun control. I don't even want to do things like ban assault rifles, reduce magazine sizes, etc. But every time I get called a moron who 'doesn't know how the Constitution works'.

Gun control is not difficult to understand. There are but two points to remember and thus far both stand unrefuted.

1) There is no causal relationship between levels of firearm ownership and crime.
2) Because of (1) no gun control law has ever reduced crime or the supply of guns to criminals, nor has it increased public safety.

In two hundred years of the most desperate searching, a mountain of research that all other subjects pail under there has been found not even the faintest hope of discovering this "claimed" relationship. Gun control has to manufacture false evidence to support its claims. The reason the CDC was prevented from continuing to supply this fake evidence at public cost.

In simple terms gun control is a lie and everything claimed by gun control is false. It is no more than a propaganda campaign based on stirring emotions of fear and hatred.

Which gun control advocate will discuss their complicity in creating the ideal place and conditions for mass murderers? Who in their right mind allows our schools to be turned into safe shooting galleries for nuts and criminals and provides live targets, our children? When asked what they are going to do the answer is nothing, don't want to know, does not exist, I've closed my mind, go away.

What other organisation can blatantly say and expect to be believed, if we remove guns from the victims of crime, crime will decrease? And people believe their emotional claims which reach frenzy point after a tragedy as they milk it for every last tear and sob. This can happen to you, do it for the children, we are saving lives..... All lies every one.
 
Uh, noooo, it depends on gun control period.
You said:

I have used that very quote FOR gun controls and have been told repeatedly by those of your leaning that I don't know what I'm talking about.

What gun control have you argued for and how does that paragraph from Heller support it?
 
governments have POWERS not rights.

and infringements are unconstitutional at a federal level. punishing people who harm others with firearms is not an infringement and is a proper exercise of governmental power

such as infringing on one's right when they are required to locate in a 'free speech zone' to speak freely
or disallowing someone to vote because they did not bring a ID card with them
those kinds of rights that cannot be infringed?
 
Incase anyone missed it, the petition was started by an ultra liberal - with undoubtedly ulterior motives. I'll try to find the link. I saw it earlier this afternoon on Washington Times.

and that liberal was successful in pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP regarding gun control
 
I'm reminded of the lesson of such foolish statements. A man takes a bucket and dips it into the sea. Looking in he sees nothing but sea water and proclaims look no fish in the bucket, there are no fish in the sea.

Argument by extension.

'conservative' logic at work
 
such as infringing on one's right when they are required to locate in a 'free speech zone' to speak freely
or disallowing someone to vote because they did not bring a ID card with them
those kinds of rights that cannot be infringed?

what???

If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?
 
what???
If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?
Simple:
The right to vote is means for liberals to gain and and retain power; the right to keep and bear arms limits that power.
 
Simple:
The right to vote is means for liberals to gain and and retain power; the right to keep and bear arms limits that power.

years ago a far left student I knew in college told the Yale Political Union that he had quit his membership in the ACLU

they asked him why

he said (and this was a rare bit of honesty from what we normally see from the far left) that the ACLU promotes "rights" that the left uses to attack the status quo and capitalism but it tends to avoid promoting rights that maintain the status quo or are cherished by conservatives (gun rights, or the right of assembly or association-or non-association )
 
years ago a far left student I knew in college told the Yale Political Union that he had quit his membership in the ACLU

they asked him why

he said (and this was a rare bit of honesty from what we normally see from the far left) that the ACLU promotes "rights" that the left uses to attack the status quo and capitalism but it tends to avoid promoting rights that maintain the status quo or are cherished by conservatives (gun rights, or the right of assembly or association-or non-association )
Our of all the millions of liberals,m there -has- to be a few honest ones.
 
anticipated you would be at a loss for words upon reading my prior post

If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?
let's examine what you had to 'say'
if someone is required to prove their eligibility to vote
would it not also be just as reasonable for them to be required to prove their eligibility to bear arms
 
anticipated you would be at a loss for words upon reading my prior post


let's examine what you had to 'say'
if someone is required to prove their eligibility to vote
would it not also be just as reasonable for them to be required to prove their eligibility to bear arms

You are not answering the question. You suggested that having to show an ID violated some alleged right to vote. I am asking you if you complained about making a voter show an ID why don't you complain about someone showing an ID to buy a gun.

I don't think showing an ID violates either right btw even though the right to buy a gun is more constitutionally protected than the right to vote
 
You are not answering the question. You suggested that having to show an ID violated some alleged right to vote. I am asking you if you complained about making a voter show an ID why don't you complain about someone showing an ID to buy a gun.

I don't think showing an ID violates either right btw even though
the right to buy a gun is more constitutionally protected than the right to vote

how so?
 
I didn't see an answer to the question:
If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?
 
I didn't see an answer to the question:
If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?

exactly my point
if one must show their ID to evidence eligibility to vote
then why does someone seeking to bear arms not also have to demonstrate their eligibility to do so
 
exactly my point
Apparently, you disagree with the need to show an ID to vote.
Why then do you agree with the need to show an ID to buy a gun?
 
Apparently, you disagree with the need to show an ID to vote.
Why then do you agree with the need to show an ID to buy a gun?

no. i absolutely agree with the requirement to show an ID as a prerequisite to voting. i believe it is incumbent upon the government to make that documentation/ID easily available to all

and yes, i similarly agree that one who bears arms should be required to demonstrate they are eligible to do so
 
"As reported by CBS and Quartz, who on Monday spoke with the individual taking credit for the online campaign which now has over 50,000 signatures, the shadowy figure is a true-blue Democrat who intends to vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election." - Campaign 2016: Surprising source of GOP convention guns petition - CBS News

Go figure.

Well Hillary has not said she intends to take his guns away........

There are many people who cannot think, deduce. A surprisingly large number around 85..94%. It is hardly taught in schools.

A Society with Poor Critical Thinking Skills: The Case for ‘Argument’ in Education

And an Irrefutable source for gun control advocates so it must be true.

A Society with Poor Critical Thinking Skills: The Case for 'Argument' in Education
 
Back
Top Bottom