• 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!

Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans

Beaudreaux said:
People that quote that poll, should also look at the way the question was asked, and what was left out - as you described by your post above: 59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

The average person is not educated on what is meant by UBGC. They have no clue that it would include if a father gives his son a firearm as a gift.
Click to expand...


In 94 there was a poll that had a question like this

Should people be able to buy assault weapons and other fully automatic weapons of war that are Commonly used to kill school children?
 
=TurtleDude;1066021091The problem with gun banners and their polls is that their polls are based on low information respondents.
Click to expand...

I love unsupported bare assertions. They're always good for a laugh.
 
TurtleDude said:
In 94 there was a poll that had a question like this

Should people be able to buy assault weapons and other fully automatic weapons of war that are Commonly used to kill school children?
Click to expand...

Are you in favor of restricting school children from riding school busses due to the potential of innocent children being killed in bus accidents?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Are you in favor of restricting school children from riding school busses due to the potential of innocent children being killed in bus accidents?
Click to expand...

Yes. Those little ****s can walk themselves home, dammit!
 
Beaudreaux said:
Are you in favor of restricting school children from riding school busses due to the potential of innocent children being killed in bus accidents?
Click to expand...

Only assault buses that have more than 20 seats!
 
imyoda said:
If the SCOTUS rules so................you never lost your rights...

Because you never had them in the first place.......

If you believe in the constitution you must accept the SCOTUS is the final interrupter of what the law is........not you, not the NRA..........its the SCOTUS that determines what the Constitution means......

Now if you do not want to believe and support that.........Then would it not be fair to say .........

You are no American...........
Click to expand...

If the Court rules on something that was common practice over ten or more decades, it is absurd to say that that one did not have the right. One might argue that that right had not been contested, but it is a false statement to say it did not exist.

This is especially important in sociological contexts of legitimacy. And that is where we now are. In almost every Western country the legitimacy of the state is under siege. I have been following its cyclically increasing decay mostly in Europe for some time. The nasty state of this normally subliminal factor is visible all over Europe now. In the US you can see the degree of decay in the quality of Candidates that were chosen by the voters to run for the Presidency, but just as nicely in the new bigotry we can see around the country.

I do not know much about your education in history or political systems, but the following sentence ("Now if you do not want to believe and support that.........Then would it not be fair to say .........
You are no American...........") could easily have been from a political speech, debate or judicial indictment in 1917 Russia, 1917 Italy or 1970 Chile. In fact, it reads almost verbatim like some protocols of court cases run by chief justice Dr Freisler I read at the university. So I guess we shall have to leave it here. But I will admit, that not only the attitude you demonstrate but especially the tools of its expression are very interesting with respect to the health of the political system.
 
TurtleDude said:
In 94 there was a poll that had a question like this

Should people be able to buy assault weapons and other fully automatic weapons of war that are Commonly used to kill school children?
Click to expand...

Such poles are conducted on the clients request or fishing for clients of which gun control is a good client. Gun control needs to know the extent of public acceptance of its propaganda and to change if not as successful as desired or anticipated.

It seems very difficult to get firearm owners to grasp the fact gun controls only strategy is to gain public acceptance and the only way of fighting gun control is to deny that public acceptance. It is apparent firearm organisations and owners are to mired in thinking gun control wants their guns and they need to cling on to their guns.

What the public wants is what the public get. Gun control knows that, firearm organisations do not.
 
joG said:
If the Court rules on something that was common practice over ten or more decades, it is absurd to say that that one did not have the right. One might argue that that right had not been contested, but it is a false statement to say it did not exist.

This is especially important in sociological contexts of legitimacy. And that is where we now are. In almost every Western country the legitimacy of the state is under siege. I have been following its cyclically increasing decay mostly in Europe for some time. The nasty state of this normally subliminal factor is visible all over Europe now. In the US you can see the degree of decay in the quality of Candidates that were chosen by the voters to run for the Presidency, but just as nicely in the new bigotry we can see around the country.

I do not know much about your education in history or political systems, but the following sentence ("Now if you do not want to believe and support that.........Then would it not be fair to say .........
You are no American...........") could easily have been from a political speech, debate or judicial indictment in 1917 Russia, 1917 Italy or 1970 Chile. In fact, it reads almost verbatim like some protocols of court cases run by chief justice Dr Freisler I read at the university. So I guess we shall have to leave it here. But I will admit, that not only the attitude you demonstrate but especially the tools of its expression are very interesting with respect to the health of the political system.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your sharing.........

BTW

The subject under discussion here is ruling of SCOTUS........

Not me
 
imyoda said:
Thank you for your sharing.........

BTW

The subject under discussion here is ruling of SCOTUS........

Not me
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has lost its credibility on constitutionality a long time ago.
 
Assault weapons are stupid, meaningless, and ineffective pieces of legislation but they are not unconstitutional. They do not prevent private citizens from owning the most effective arms for self-defense, because the features they target do not make weapons more effective; there are perfectly equivalent alternatives to every weapon banned by the AWB.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Assault weapons are stupid, meaningless, and ineffective pieces of legislation but they are not unconstitutional. They do not prevent private citizens from owning the most effective arms for self-defense, because the features they target do not make weapons more effective; there are perfectly equivalent alternatives to every weapon banned by the AWB.
Click to expand...

but that raises an issue-banning features based on stupid reasons should make the bans unconstitutional for that reason alone
 
TurtleDude said:
but that raises an issue-banning features based on stupid reasons should make the bans unconstitutional for that reason alone
Click to expand...

Has the Supreme Court ever overturned a law that they ruled should be examined on the "rational basis" scrutiny? There's seemingly no Constitutional requirement that the laws passed by Congress actually benefit the country in any fashion.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Has the Supreme Court ever overturned a law that they ruled should be examined on the "rational basis" scrutiny? There's seemingly no Constitutional requirement that the laws passed by Congress actually benefit the country in any fashion.
Click to expand...

I cannot think of any. and that is an excellent post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom