• 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!

Suit filed to permit Californians to carry guns openly in public

Dittohead not! said:
I don't recall the Second Amendment saying anything about keeping and bearing arms only where they can be seen.
Click to expand...

Huh!!! Care to quote where it says that?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Ever notice how, when a poster runs our of real arguments, they start with the insults?
It's a good way to know when someone has nothing of value to say.
Click to expand...

George Carlin — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
 
Crimefree said:
Why would it need to be in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and because it contains an enumeration of rights in the first ten amendments, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Where else should it be?
 
Dittohead not! said:
How can I quote what I just said isn't there?
Click to expand...

Sigh!!!!!!!!!
I don't recall the Second Amendment saying anything about keeping and bearing arms only where they can be seen.
Click to expand...

Quote where the constitution says were they can be seen

Was that not obvious?
 
Crimefree said:
Sigh!!!!!!!!!


Quote where the constitution says were they can be seen

Was that not obvious?
Click to expand...

I just posted that the Constitution does not say that.

How much more obvious can I get? You misread my original post.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and because it contains an enumeration of rights in the first ten amendments, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Where else should it be?
Click to expand...

You are rambling way off somewhere else. Please try and follow your own comments

blaxshep said:
Every gun law without exception is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Dittohead said:
Can you find the word "gun" in the Constitution at all?
Click to expand...

Crimefree said:
Why would it need to be in the constitution?
Click to expand...

I ask again why would the word "gun" need to be in the constitution if every gun law is unconstitutional?

Is the word arms not inclusive of gun?
 
Crimefree said:
You are rambling way off somewhere else. Please try and follow your own comments







I ask again why would the word "gun" need to be in the constitution if every gun law is unconstitutional?

Is the word arms not inclusive of gun?
Click to expand...

How can something be unconstitutional if it's not in the Constitution? That doesn't make sense.
 
Crimefree said:
:eek:uch:

You must be that only person who does not understand. So I give you a chance. Prove your idiotic rambling or go somewhere your level fits in.

Take each one of your stupid claims and demonstrate it valid by quoting only what I have written that proves this idiocy.


Lets see you use a reasonable rational approach to that. My bet is you are not smart enough.
Click to expand...

another emotional meltdown and deflection over your shortcomings and strawmen LMAO I love it!
Theres no changes by you to give to me, you had the meltdown and posted ramblings so its your choice to post honestly and cohenertnely or not, doesn't matter to me either way I will continue to laugh at your previously completely failed posts.
My claims dont need validated to you, YOU first have to take a pill and ask ONE sane, rational, coherent question that isn't a strawman. let us know when you can :laughat:

:popcorn2:
 
Crimefree said:
Idiotic there are many different suitable metals that could be used and it is hardly likely government will disarm itself. A few seconds thought was all this needed to refute. What ifs are so juvenile.
Click to expand...

Nothing you posted changes the fact that there could be a gun law made that doesnt violate the constitution LMAO:laughat:
your post fails again LMAO
 
Crimefree said:
1.)Why do you see firearm owners begging for gun control laws as any kind of progress?
2.)Taking back means you take back what you have given not give more. :roll::shock::doh
Click to expand...

1.) what?
FYI Im a firearm owner, there are threads here about it and what I want to buy in the future
2.) more incoherent ramblings LMAO
 
Crimefree said:
You are rambling way off somewhere else. Please try and follow your own comments







I ask again why would the word "gun" need to be in the constitution if every gun law is unconstitutional?

Is the word arms not inclusive of gun?
Click to expand...

You keep saying that all gun laws are unconstitutional, hence no gun laws are valid. I must ask what do you think of violent convicted criminals being able to buy guns or those that are seriously mentally ill, should they or not be able to buy and own them?
Personally I believe the case will lose in the courts, not because it is not based correctly on the constitution but like another poster suggested the government of California will find a way to kill it and with the likelihood of the SC going Liberal I think they will kill the case, based on who knows what excuse. The scarier thing is what happens when the feds try imposing more gun control laws and win in the courts, do the people just abide by the new laws are tell the feds to go to hell, we shall see, but I know this much many minds have changed since the last ban and it will not be so easy this time around.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I don't recall the Second Amendment saying anything about keeping and bearing arms only where they can be seen.
Click to expand...

That isn't the problem. The problem is there are large areas of California where they can't carry openly and they cant carry concealed. That's an undue restriction.
 
Casper said:
You keep saying that all gun laws are unconstitutional, hence no gun laws are valid. I must ask what do you think of violent convicted criminals being able to buy guns or those that are seriously mentally ill, should they or not be able to buy and own them?
Click to expand...

The point of a judicial system and imprisonment is as punishment for the crime. Once released a felon is what? Have they paid their debt to society or not? Were they evaluated (due process) and adjudicated as unfit to own a firearm? Was this a contestable part of the sentence?

The answer to your question lies within the constitution. Where is government allowed to punish on suspicion or prior to any act being committed?

What kind of people are we that we allow such oppression to be carried out in our name? Deluded idiotic followers of governments decrees or people who value their rights? Now you tell me is it constitutional or not to deprive a citizen of his rights, because that is what released felons are, citizens the same as they were before they committed the crime.

Do you think denial of a legal purchase will rehabilitate a released felon? Prevent a released felon from committing another crime? Hinder them in any way? This is a feel good catch all for lazy cops law the serves no useful purpose to citizens. It is clearly unconstitutional.

Personally I believe the case will lose in the courts,
Click to expand...

They are governments courts and as such are not the highest authority. I would not be surprised if it failed simply due to public pressure and government's desire to keep gun control laws. It depends on public pressure.

not because it is not based correctly on the constitution but like another poster suggested the government of California will find a way to kill it and with the likelihood of the SC going Liberal I think they will kill the case, based on who knows what excuse.
Click to expand...

A public who put up with government or state officials doing that deserve the governance they get. The public have a choice, they can force officials to obey our laws or sit back and watch them being destroyed. Who do you think polices and enforces the constitution?

The scarier thing is what happens when the feds try imposing more gun control laws and win in the courts, do the people just abide by the new laws are tell the feds to go to hell, we shall see, but I know this much many minds have changed since the last ban and it will not be so easy this time around.
Click to expand...

The very fact firearm organisation do not bother to advise, educate or promote the protection of our rights is inexcusable. Not one of them would exist if it were not for our rights. You are welcome to ask any of them why they don't care what happens to our rights.

Of course firearm owners could also start and support a rights protection organisation that had no other task to use as an excuse
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
The point of a judicial system and imprisonment is as punishment for the crime. Once released a felon is what? Have they paid their debt to society or not? Were they evaluated (due process) and adjudicated as unfit to own a firearm? Was this a contestable part of the sentence?

The answer to your question lies within the constitution. Where is government allowed to punish on suspicion or prior to any act being committed?

What kind of people are we that we allow such oppression to be carried out in our name? Deluded idiotic followers of governments decrees or people who value their rights? Now you tell me is it constitutional or not to deprive a citizen of his rights, because that is what released felons are, citizens the same as they were before they committed the crime.

Do you think denial of a legal purchase will rehabilitate a released felon? Prevent a released felon from committing another crime? Hinder them in any way? This is a feel good catch all for lazy cops law the serves no useful purpose to citizens. It is clearly unconstitutional.



They are governments courts and as such are not the highest authority. I would not be surprised if it failed simply due to public pressure and government's desire to keep gun control laws. It depends on public pressure.



A public who put up with government or state officials doing that deserve the governance they get. The public have a choice, they can force officials to obey our laws or sit back and watch them being destroyed. Who do you think polices and enforces the constitution?



The very fact firearm organisation do not bother to advise, educate or promote the protection of our rights is inexcusable. Not one of them would exist if it were not for our rights. You are welcome to ask any of them why they don't care what happens to our rights.

Of course firearm owners could also start and support a rights protection organisation that had no other task to use as an excuse
Click to expand...

I agree with all of the above, except, a released convict has not served their time, most get out on parole and that means that are not done paying their debt. Once done and keep out of trouble then I can see a court giving them back their rights, which they themselves threw away. You did not address the tricky question of mental illness, do you or not believe that if someone has been diagnosed as having a severe form of mental illness where if not taking their medication the could likely become violent? A simple yes and no answer, the arguments on how it would be implemented and yes the courts would have to be involved, are simply the rules, but plain and simply should they have access to firearms while still deemed a highly possible threat?
 
Casper said:
I agree with all of the above, except, a released convict has not served their time, most get out on parole and that means that are not done paying their debt.

Sorry it is what I meant by their debt is paid. Parole is still serving part of the sentence. May I phrased it wrong.

Once done and keep out of trouble then I can see a court giving them back their rights, which they themselves threw away.
Click to expand...

Actually no the right was never stripped from them and this would require due process. In prison they are denied access to guns as they should be in serving out any parole. The right may only be exercised without criminal conviction after they they served the complete sentence. It is the principle if government is willing to inflict society with people it knows for certain will commit another crime that is where the problem lies. Denial of a legal purchase of a gun is not going to solve it.

You did not address the tricky question of mental illness, do you or not believe that if someone has been diagnosed as having a severe form of mental illness where if not taking their medication the could likely become violent?
Click to expand...

Ooops let me do it now.

Most the crimes committed by mentally disturbed people who are well known and are ongoing over a period of time. What this points to is that identification of such people is difficult in the current system. It is the system that is faulty and once again short of restraint how do you prevent the acquisition of firearms or other weapons.

I simply cannot believe that we as supposedly intelligent people think telling a person willing to commit murder they cannot buy a gun is thought to be of some use. This applies to both released felons and the mentally disturbed. About which we really don't know enough except most of these problems are due to social pressures. That applies equally to crime.

What can be said with absolute certainty is that as long as we have some sort of induced love affair with guns the social problems will increase. We cannot expect to redirect and distract attention from the root causes and go chasing instrumentality as some kind of magical cure without suffering the consequences of that stupidity.

A simple yes and no answer, the arguments on how it would be implemented and yes the courts would have to be involved, are simply the rules, but plain and simply should they have access to firearms while still deemed a highly possible threat?
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how you intend to stop anyone acquiring illegal drugs? I asked this way to remove any notions about guns becasue if one cannot be stopped neither can the other.

Yes we need to evaluate our thinking on these two subjects and consider we are barking up the wrong tree. If guns cannot be shown to cause either why are we wasting time money and valuable resources chasing fairies?

Do you have an answer?
Click to expand...
 
Crimefree said:
Casper said:
I agree with all of the above, except, a released convict has not served their time, most get out on parole and that means that are not done paying their debt.

Sorry it is what I meant by their debt is paid. Parole is still serving part of the sentence. May I phrased it wrong.



Actually no the right was never stripped from them and this would require due process. In prison they are denied access to guns as they should be in serving out any parole. The right may only be exercised without criminal conviction after they they served the complete sentence. It is the principle if government is willing to inflict society with people it knows for certain will commit another crime that is where the problem lies. Denial of a legal purchase of a gun is not going to solve it.



Ooops let me do it now.

Most the crimes committed by mentally disturbed people who are well known and are ongoing over a period of time. What this points to is that identification of such people is difficult in the current system. It is the system that is faulty and once again short of restraint how do you prevent the acquisition of firearms or other weapons.

I simply cannot believe that we as supposedly intelligent people think telling a person willing to commit murder they cannot buy a gun is thought to be of some use. This applies to both released felons and the mentally disturbed. About which we really don't know enough except most of these problems are due to social pressures. That applies equally to crime.

What can be said with absolute certainty is that as long as we have some sort of induced love affair with guns the social problems will increase. We cannot expect to redirect and distract attention from the root causes and go chasing instrumentality as some kind of magical cure without suffering the consequences of that stupidity.



Can you tell me how you intend to stop anyone acquiring illegal drugs? I asked this way to remove any notions about guns becasue if one cannot be stopped neither can the other.

Yes we need to evaluate our thinking on these two subjects and consider we are barking up the wrong tree. If guns cannot be shown to cause either why are we wasting time money and valuable resources chasing fairies?

Do you have an answer?
Click to expand...
Ok on criminals we are in agreement.
On the mentally ill, I can only say some of these people are identified yet little is done in our current system, yes major reform is overdue and needs to be addressed before blaming the tools some of these nuts use when they hit the wall completely. Do I believe it will stop all of them from getting their hands on a gun, of-course not, but I do believe hat some can be prevented, and that is better than doing nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Casper said:
Ok on criminals we are in agreement.
On the mentally ill, I can only say some of these people are identified yet little is done in our current system, yes major reform is overdue and needs to be addressed before blaming the tools some of these nuts use when they hit the wall completely. Do I believe it will stop all of them from getting their hands on a gun, of-course not, but I do believe hat some can be prevented, and that is better than doing nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but on that I must disagree. First because they currently slip through the cracks. Next the implement is a minor inconvenience to obtain. As already shown these people are happy to kill their own family to obtain what they need. With motivation like that denial of a legal sale means nothing.

Thus not true these nuts as you call them are high functioning people who plan over time down to the last detail. Such a person is going to make a plan to obtain a suitable firearm. These are not spur of the moment events and any suggestion a minor inconvenience of obtaining a firearm is a problem to somebody planning mass murder must take a longer look at the facts. Trying to apply denials even the extreme bans is in every application an utter and complete failure. I'll simply say point to a successful ban or denial of an object or physical thing.

One must not exclude the damage done by pursuing the wrong direction completely and having to undo laws, labour assignments, departments, interrelated services, funding and starting all over again. Government never ever willingly admits it was wrong.

Why can't we just get it right for once? You admit the system is flawed why think denial of guns will fix it?
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
I'm sorry but on that I must disagree. First because they currently slip through the cracks. Next the implement is a minor inconvenience to obtain. As already shown these people are happy to kill their own family to obtain what they need. With motivation like that denial of a legal sale means nothing.

Thus not true these nuts as you call them are high functioning people who plan over time down to the last detail. Such a person is going to make a plan to obtain a suitable firearm. These are not spur of the moment events and any suggestion a minor inconvenience of obtaining a firearm is a problem to somebody planning mass murder must take a longer look at the facts. Trying to apply denials even the extreme bans is in every application an utter and complete failure. I'll simply say point to a successful ban or denial of an object or physical thing.

One must not exclude the damage done by pursuing the wrong direction completely and having to undo laws, labour assignments, departments, interrelated services, funding and starting all over again. Government never ever willingly admits it was wrong.

Why can't we just get it right for once? You admit the system is flawed why think denial of guns will fix it?
Click to expand...
I understand the point you are making but that said I believe that we have to stop sweeping the elephant in the room under the rug, there is a major issue and it needs to be addressed. Almost every one of the spree and mass killers had been identified as having issues yet the system did not deal with them and society paid the price. I do not claim to have the knowledge on how best to deal with those identified as having a dangerous mental illness but I think that if we really wanted to address the issue we could. If one gets down to it the best solution is to institutionalize them until deemed safe, why are some of these people even walking the streets, oh yes we want to ignore the problem.
 
Casper said:
I understand the point you are making but that said I believe that we have to stop sweeping the elephant in the room under the rug, there is a major issue and it needs to be addressed. Almost every one of the spree and mass killers had been identified as having issues yet the system did not deal with them and society paid the price. I do not claim to have the knowledge on how best to deal with those identified as having a dangerous mental illness but I think that if we really wanted to address the issue we could. If one gets down to it the best solution is to institutionalize them until deemed safe, why are some of these people even walking the streets, oh yes we want to ignore the problem.
Click to expand...

I think your approach is the only ration view we can have. There is obviously a problem, that we cannot deny. However currently to put it bluntly we have two schools of thought. The well supported theory (popular) that firearms are responsible and a growing realisation that we must look elsewhere. This is indeed not unreasonable as anyone can figure from basic physics it is not possible for guns to be responsible as a causal mechanism. As a tool being used yes simply because it offers advantages.

We have known for many decades that the root cause of crime are all social. Our social well being is not under our control, we don't control the economy, manufacturing, exchange rate, unemployment, disparity between rich and poor, availability of land, water..... and many other things. Government does. So if governments policy is to reward the big companies who donated to their election coffers skewing the economy, screwing with interest rates, foreign policy, government tenders, and labour laws such that unemployment, food costs, gas, land, housing all increase at a faster rate (inflation) we have a situation. Desperate people also have to live. What options do they have. Governments hand is paid for in election promises.

Whatever results in increasing crime it is totally related to governments performance and has nothing to do with guns.

Just two items on the budget, gun control and the war on drugs cost what percentage of the total budget? Both of these seek to control the object and both are equally unsuccessful. They will no matter how much money they gobble up always be unsuccessful. Physical laws are like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom