• 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!

Who Supported the Mulford Act and Why?

jet57 said:
It's the contradictions Bret: are there contradictions - or not?
Click to expand...

Its that your argument is stupid. Its a private event. They have every right to demand no firearms during their event. Just the same as you or I would on our own property or at a hall for an event.

Firearms aren't allowed at most Presidential events, care to argue that is a violation of the 2nd?
 
jet57 said:
It's the contradictions Bret: are there contradictions - or not?
Click to expand...

How in the world do you manage to recognize contradictions and hypocricy in others yet not recognize it in yourself. Yes jet, there are contradictions enough to go around. Why do you think I disagree? I think they were wrong then as well as now in these particular matters. But it would be ignorant to assume as you do that because they are wrong in this case that they are wrong in every case. What private parties do is their own business.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its that your argument is stupid. Its a private event. They have every right to demand no firearms during their event. Just the same as you or I would on our own property or at a hall for an event.

Firearms aren't allowed at most Presidential events, care to argue that is a violation of the 2nd?
Click to expand...

Well, if only you knew what you were talking about...

The government told them "no guns". So your "defense of the second amendment" is just BS.
 
BretJ said:
How in the world do you manage to recognize contradictions and hypocricy in others yet not recognize it in yourself. Yes jet, there are contradictions enough to go around. Why do you think I disagree? I think they were wrong then as well as now in these particular matters. But it would be ignorant to assume as you do that because they are wrong in this case that they are wrong in every case. What private parties do is their own business.
Click to expand...

When did I ever say that the NRA was wrong in every case? And you admit then that they and radical right are full of contradictions on the gun issue.

Good, glad we could agree.
 
jet57 said:
Well number one, you're failing to see the obvious contradiction between what Reagan and the NRA supported and what the right-wing and the NRA support now. Both darlings of the conservative movement, Reagan and the NRA voted against the right to carry when it came to the Black Panthers which flies in the face of what both the NRA and right-wing support today: except of course when it comes to the 2016 RNC...

It is astounding to me that you don't see the obvious contradictions. THAT was the point and it is fact as my sources clearly show. You're being a member or not of the NRA has nothing to do with the fact that you are denying what is clearly true.

Was the NRA and Reagan right in the Act? I think that they were. The problem however, and I'll say it once again, is the lack of consistency on the part of the NRA and the right-wing on this issue of the second amendment. NOW they scream when someone says it's a good idea for no one to carry concealed OR open, which is exactly what the Mumford Act employed by stating that one could not carry a loaded gun. You however must believe that the Black Panthers were right. YOU are also denying the fact that while the NRA and right-wing scream about the right to carry, yet they clearly roll over when big gummit says that they can't carry at the RNC.

The contradictions just show what a phony bunch the NRA and the pro gun crowd is. THAT is the truth you are avoiding.
Click to expand...

contradictions-Jet claiming he owns guns including a "weapon of war" (Colt 1911 pistol-a weapon that can accept a 25 round magazine) while saying no one should be able to own "assault weapons" or that the only reason to own a 10 round magazine is for warfare.

Why do the NRA bashers go back to what happened 40 years ago when right now its the DEMOCRAT party that is the GUN BAN movement and Jet, who claims he "trusts Hillary 100%" whines about what the NRA did 40 years ago.

Its hilarious seeing gun banners trying to justify their bannerrhoid proclivities by bashing what the NRA apparently did before they even became political.
 
jet57 said:
It's the reason that one cannot carry a loaded gun in California unless there is a special permit for it.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that.

The OP was asking "who supported it & why"?

I believe my response was accurate and concise.
 
jet57 said:
Well, if only you knew what you were talking about...

The government told them "no guns". So your "defense of the second amendment" is just BS.
Click to expand...

Are there guns at Presidential speeches?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Are there guns at Presidential speeches?
Click to expand...


Of course there are.

You're not going to BS your way out of this OC. Big Gummit denied Republicans the right to "bear arms" and the NRA and the radical right are rolling over for it. So please spare me the "defense of the second amendment" nonsense when the issue is raised again. You have your chance right now, and you're doing nothing.
 
jet57 said:
Of course there are.

You're not going to BS your way out of this OC. Big Gummit denied Republicans the right to "bear arms" and the NRA and the radical right are rolling over for it. So please spare me the "defense of the second amendment" nonsense when the issue is raised again. You have your chance right now, and you're doing nothing.
Click to expand...

No. There are not. Not in closed settings. Quit making a patently false argument.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No. There are not. Not in closed settings. Quit making a patently false argument.
Click to expand...

So when the San Antonio Tip Top Cafe said people could open carry in their cafes, they were illegal.

San Antonio staple Tip Top Cafe to allow open carry, says 'armed society is a civil society' - San Antonio Express-News

You're not going to win this argument. If a venue, like a stadium says that a gun show can be held, that means that carrying is allowed.

Big Gummit said that Republicans 'Merican defenders!!! of the second amendment!!, just rolled right over for it.

You all are accepting big gummit telling you you don not have the right to bear arms.
 
jet57 said:
So when the San Antonio Tip Top Cafe said people could open carry in their cafes, they were illegal.

San Antonio staple Tip Top Cafe to allow open carry, says 'armed society is a civil society' - San Antonio Express-News

You're not going to win this argument. If a venue, like a stadium says that a gun show can be held, that means that carrying is allowed.

Big Gummit said that Republicans 'Merican defenders!!! of the second amendment!!, just rolled right over for it.

You all are accepting big gummit telling you you don not have the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Why don't you understand the basics of property rights? Why don't you understand that the possibility of carry is at the discretion of the event holder?

This is not complicated. You seem unable to recognize the basics of either, either you are deliberately framing a stupid argument or you genuinely don't understand that rights on private property can be restricted by the owner or someone leasing the property. Either way you are forming a losing argument because you want to further your anti-2nd agenda.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Why don't you understand the basics of property rights? Why don't you understand that the possibility of carry is at the discretion of the event holder?

This is not complicated. You seem unable to recognize the basics of either, either you are deliberately framing a stupid argument or you genuinely don't understand that rights on private property can be restricted by the owner or someone leasing the property. Either way you are forming a losing argument because you want to further your anti-2nd agenda.
Click to expand...

The event holder is the Republican party dude. Big gummit told the Republican party that they couldn't have guns. The story's been out for weeks now. The venue didn't tell them that - big gummit did.
 
jet57 said:
The event holder is the Republican party dude. Big gummit told the Republican party that they couldn't have guns. The story's been out for weeks now. The venue didn't tell them that - big gummit did.
Click to expand...

Its a condition of Secret Service protection, which means its held for every closed event and has been that way for decades. Because you don't seem to understand the Trump campaign agreed to Secret Service protection and what that entails, please read Heller and what place restrictions are and the narrow government focus of protecting the President or a Presidential candidate.

Lastly, the GOP and the Trump campaign agreed to the restrictions. They are the people leasing the center, its their call.

So you pick which portion of the argument you want to be wrong about, so far its all of them.
 
TurtleDude said:
contradictions-Jet claiming he owns guns including a "weapon of war" (Colt 1911 pistol-a weapon that can accept a 25 round magazine) while saying no one should be able to own "assault weapons" or that the only reason to own a 10 round magazine is for warfare.

Why do the NRA bashers go back to what happened 40 years ago when right now its the DEMOCRAT party that is the GUN BAN movement and Jet, who claims he "trusts Hillary 100%" whines about what the NRA did 40 years ago.

Its hilarious seeing gun banners trying to justify their bannerrhoid proclivities by bashing what the NRA apparently did before they even became political.
Click to expand...

then do you agree it was wrong for the right to bear arms to be banned at the RNC convention?

would you be OK with the new black panthers to carry arms thru the streets of cleveland as they did 40 years ago?
 
justabubba said:
there will be no president in cleveland
Click to expand...

Your argument is pedantic. The example would stand, the same thing happens at candidate speeches after they accept secret service protection.
 
justabubba said:
then do you agree it was wrong for the right to bear arms to be banned at the RNC convention?

would you be OK with the new black panthers to carry arms thru the streets of cleveland as they did 40 years ago?
Click to expand...

Uh the secret service controls that. If the panthers don't have records what's the issue?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its a condition of Secret Service protection, which means its held for every closed event and has been that way for decades. Because you don't seem to understand the Trump campaign agreed to Secret Service protection and what that entails, please read Heller and what place restrictions are and the narrow government focus of protecting the President or a Presidential candidate.

Lastly, the GOP and the Trump campaign agreed to the restrictions. They are the people leasing the center, its their call.

So you pick which portion of the argument you want to be wrong about, so far its all of them.
Click to expand...

It's big gummit.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Your argument is pedantic. The example would stand, the same thing happens at candidate speeches after they accept secret service protection.
Click to expand...

you misspelled "correct"
 
TurtleDude said:
Uh the secret service controls that. If the panthers don't have records what's the issue?
Click to expand...

let me seek clarification

do you agree that the black panthers should be able to bear arms in the streets of cleveland
 
jet57 said:
It's big gummit.
Click to expand...

So is carrying arms in a Courthouse. Show me you understand clear public safety interest. Show me you understand a narrow, well defined public safety law.
 
justabubba said:
let me seek clarification

do you agree that the black panthers should be able to bear arms in the streets of cleveland
Click to expand...

if they have clean records-I don't have a problem with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom