• 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!

Another reason why most cops favor CCW licenses for honest citizens

What do you think will happen on the CCW front in light of the election results?
 
Just another incompetent gun nut living out his John Wayne fantasy...........................right?
 
What do you think will happen on the CCW front in light of the election results?

hard to say but we know that Obama judges on Federal appellate courts have made some really stupid decisions. I look to that being rolled back as Trump starts putting Republicans on those circuit courts
 
hard to say but we know that Obama judges on Federal appellate courts have made some really stupid decisions. I look to that being rolled back as Trump starts putting Republicans on those circuit courts

Only if they can get cases to challenge them and any court is governments court which is always a gamble. A very expensive gamble. We should not be relying on governments courts to determine what our laws mean.
 
Last edited:
hard to say but we know that Obama judges on Federal appellate courts have made some really stupid decisions. I look to that being rolled back as Trump starts putting Republicans on those circuit courts

I really hope so, the result of the Woolard case for us in Maryland was depressing. Would be great to get CCW reciprocity at least.
 
We should not be relying on governments courts to determine what our laws mean.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

It is the Article III judiciary's (the SCOTUS, the 13 appellate courts, and the 94 U.S. District Courts) responsibility to interpret the laws and decide concrete factual cases in a dispositive manner.

That is to say, determining what our laws mean is exactly what the "government" courts should be doing.

I'm interested in how you've come to some other conclusion.
 
Only if they can get cases to challenge them and any court is governments court which is always a gamble. A very expensive gamble. We should not be relying on governments courts to determine what our laws mean.

like it or not, that is what we are stuck with, short of a complete revolution which would be a horrorshow
 
like it or not, that is what we are stuck with, short of a complete revolution which would be a horrorshow

Nope that is neglecting the fact citizens are in control. As I pointed out announce that alcohol will be severely restricted and see what happens. It is an extreme example but it shows my point government cannot buck public demand unless it wants to lose popularity. For those who fail to see politics for what it is popularity = power and no government will willingly give up either. So the answer is make damn sure the public do not want to lose what firearm ownership means to them.

We have the solution in our hand and it is the only solution. We cannot win in governments courts. Courts are about publicity and to firearm organisations the same opportunity to gain publicity as mass shooting and such are to gun control.
 
Nope that is neglecting the fact citizens are in control. As I pointed out announce that alcohol will be severely restricted and see what happens. It is an extreme example but it shows my point government cannot buck public demand unless it wants to lose popularity. For those who fail to see politics for what it is popularity = power and no government will willingly give up either. So the answer is make damn sure the public do not want to lose what firearm ownership means to them.

We have the solution in our hand and it is the only solution. We cannot win in governments courts. Courts are about publicity and to firearm organisations the same opportunity to gain publicity as mass shooting and such are to gun control.

So what is your solution
 
I really hope so, the result of the Woolard case for us in Maryland was depressing. Would be great to get CCW reciprocity at least.

The only way you get anything political is to demand it. If you cannot convince "government" it will be a good idea not to piss off thousands of voters who will prove their intent and can be counted if needed the answer is no.

It is asinine to try and negotiate with government when you have no power. Power = the ability to increase or decrease governments power/popularity/votes.

Firearm owners have to organise and ensure their rights are protected and their voice heard. Nobody else is going to do it for them.
 
So what is your solution

It was right there :lol:

So the answer is make damn sure the public do not want to lose what firearm ownership means to them.

I've said it a couple of times, the only solution is to have the public's protection. The public has to see the benefits to them of armed civilians such that they are not going to toss their safety, security or freedom under the bus. If anyone can post a better idea that is guaranteed to work lets see it.

What I can say with 100% certainty is if it has been tried before it has failed.
 
So cops have no way to favour honest citizens then.

The great bulk of US citizens who went on to become mass shooters were supposedly 'honest' and therefore were able to acquire their guns quite legally

mass-shooting-legally.jpg
 
The great bulk of US citizens who went on to become mass shooters were supposedly 'honest' and therefore were able to acquire their guns quite legally

View attachment 67210291


The great majority of rapists had penises before they turned to rape
 
The great majority of rapists had penises before they turned to rape

The big difference being that they were born with those. So having a gun for you is as natural as that then ?

And the hits just keep coming :lol:
 
The big difference being that they were born with those. So having a gun for you is as natural as that then ?

And the hits just keep coming :lol:

Our founding fathers believe that self defense was a natural right that all men have. I agree with them though I am not religious.
 
Our founding fathers believe that self defense was a natural right that all men have. I agree with them though I am not religious.

So why does this 'natural right' end up costing you 35,000 lives per year ? Those are virtually wartime levels of violent loss and far exceed the annual tally for Vietnam
 
So why does this 'natural right' end up costing you 35,000 lives per year ? Those are virtually wartime levels of violent loss and far exceed the annual tally for Vietnam

that's really silly. Our natural right has nothing to do with that. and your wet dream to impose a gun ban on the USA wouldn't help anything. Why do you have such a hard time accepting that fact that many people aren't afraid of guns as you are and we value our freedoms. Your obsession over our rights is really pretty pathologically silly
 
Back
Top Bottom