• 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!

This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws

Rucker61 said:
There would never be such a Constitutional amendment, but as we've seen with the 2nd, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, there's no need to secure a new amendment when the courts can simply ignore the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions.
Click to expand...

And that is all it takes compliant citizens who put up with such removal of rights by government as these rights have no value to them. Government can do anything citizens allow it to do.
 
Crimefree said:
It is delusional to believe guns cause anything. It is paranoia to want to remove an object because it is feared as "dangerous" or might injure somebody. Are you satisfied now?

I notice you avoided this question and attempted to deflect why was that? To difficult? Might make you think? Does not feel right? Don't like it?

What is the point of keeping laws neither you or anyone else can show have worked to save one single life or prevented a single crime?

Was this not important to your point?
Click to expand...

How can you possibly expect anyone else to have gotten that from your post...?

No, sane Americans understand reason.
 
Absentglare said:
How can you possibly expect anyone else to have gotten that from your post...?
Click to expand...

It would appear it was only you that was stumped. You may want to consider that.

No, sane Americans understand reason.
Click to expand...

To what reason are you referring?

What is the point of keeping laws neither you or anyone else can show have worked to save one single life or prevented a single crime?

Deflection again and not answered. My my this is telling. Do such facts scare you that you must avoid them? We do understand but when debating on such important things that peoples lives depend on, our feelings and aversion should not get in the way of truth. Seriously would you consciously promote something that may get people injured or killed?
 
This does seem a good thing.

However, the article also ended with this somewhat tamping down reflection:

"It’s going to be very tempting for most of the nation to celebrate such an affirmation of states rights, but it’s also important to realize that as the Supreme Court strikes down federal powers to pass gun laws, it simultaneously places those powers in the hands of state governments, and not all state governments were smart enough to mirror the natural right to bear arms reflected in the Second Amendment.

While recognizing the Second Amendment’s intent to outlaw federal gun control is undoubtedly a good thing for the nation overall, I cannot pretend to have a crystal ball to foresee what that might mean on the state level, and what that may mean in states who refuse to treat their citizens as anything other than subjects."
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
This does seem a good thing.

However, the article also ended with this somewhat tamping down reflection:

"It’s going to be very tempting for most of the nation to celebrate such an affirmation of states rights, but it’s also important to realize that as the Supreme Court strikes down federal powers to pass gun laws, it simultaneously places those powers in the hands of state governments, and not all state governments were smart enough to mirror the natural right to bear arms reflected in the Second Amendment.

While recognizing the Second Amendment’s intent to outlaw federal gun control is undoubtedly a good thing for the nation overall, I cannot pretend to have a crystal ball to foresee what that might mean on the state level, and what that may mean in states who refuse to treat their citizens as anything other than subjects."
Click to expand...

An excellent point is how do we handle the fall out and help promote the result we expect.

As I keep saying the biggest danger is that firearm owners instead of rising to the occasion of a golden opportunity sit on their bum doing nothing but wait. They will be waiting for their useless organisations to lead the way and provide the information and expertise which they do not have.

We have to recognise that just like government States are subject to public demand and opinion and use it to not only survive but become accepted as valuable citizens.
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
An excellent point is how do we handle the fall out and help promote the result we expect.

As I keep saying the biggest danger is that firearm owners instead of rising to the occasion of a golden opportunity sit on their bum doing nothing but wait. They will be waiting for their useless organisations to lead the way and provide the information and expertise which they do not have.

We have to recognise that just like government States are subject to public demand and opinion and use it to not only survive but become accepted as valuable citizens.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

I also think this should be understood in other areas rapidly. As, since this is a watershed election with potentially several more Supreme Court appointments due to the aging SC bench, folks should start apply pressure to their states to amend constitutions in many areas as protections and assertions of states prerogatives so as to reflect each state's preferences. This is one, but also abortion, SSM...

Yes, getting out way ahead of the curve is the smarter way to go.
 
Crimefree said:
The earth has flipped poles at least four times. That means the direction was reversed. :lol: but I get your point.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the outer surface's rotation.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Totally agree.

I also think this should be understood in other areas rapidly. As, since this is a watershed election with potentially several more Supreme Court appointments due to the aging SC bench, folks should start apply pressure to their states to amend constitutions in many areas as protections and assertions of states prerogatives so as to reflect each state's preferences. This is one, but also abortion, SSM...

Yes, getting out way ahead of the curve is the smarter way to go.
Click to expand...

Absolutely one needs to start at State level and strengthen the first line of defence. I'm not going to be concerned by other issues as once people begin to realise what is right they tend to support other issues as well. It's a state of awareness of what is happening while we have our heads up er in the sand.

For hundreds of years we have suffered gun controls insults and slurs on our good behaviour and record. It's time firearm owners took back what has been removed by gun control propaganda. We are least likely to commit crime and that is shown by the use of illegally acquired guns in violent crime and have a safety record that is not bested by any other object. Yet with gun controls incessant accusations, slurs and insults the public have doubts and fears enough that they want even more useless gun control laws. As it stands some 50% support more strict gun control laws. Shatteringly less than 13% think we need less. That indicates a huge hole in public education. Few citizens actually realise the value of firearm ownership and what it means to their own safety, security and freedom.
 
Absentglare said:
Best not to tempt fate, people said similar things about a Trump victory.
Click to expand...

Those would be the same people that want gun control. They have a long history of being wrong.
 
Crimefree said:
This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws ​

This is a case firearm owners cannot afford to lose. Only the most selfish and stupid will think it will not impact on public safety and security. For once in their lives firearm owners need to look at the big picture and consider the public at large living with the sick minds of gun control in charge. It's your choice, this case needs support and the public are not going to support selfish people only interested in protecting their own guns. Such action as protecting guns instead of public safety is going to set public opinion against firearm owners.

What should firearm owners be doing to help this case?


After a decades-long wait, we finally appear to have a case that is likely to see the United States Supreme Court have to directly examine whether the Founding Fathers meant what they said when they wrote amendments to a federal Constitution that was designed to tightly bind and constrict the reach of the federal government.

What most 21st Century Americans simply do not grasp is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written to to give rights to the citizens of our then-new nation, but was instead written to tightly constrain the federal government.

~~~

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to placate the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, and was mean to be ten strong chains binding down the then-puny federal leviathan to prevent future abuses.

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written by Founding Fathers who understood the right to bear arms as a natural human right that the Creator bestowed upon each and every human being. How can there be any other right, if the right to defend your life is not the most paramount right of them all?

They almost felt it silly to have to codify a natural right that was so obviously self-evident to them, but knowing that a federal government unchained is a federal government tyrannical, they ratified the basic human right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.


Source
This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws
Click to expand...

It's a really slanted article about an appeal to a conviction. The rest of the article is a lecture on what the writer thinks the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment are all about. Not a good report. It's based on a big "if". The stupid kid brought it all on.
 
Absentglare said:
That would be absolutely hilarious if this "worked" to overturn all gun laws, and then sane Americans respond by securing a constitutional amendment explicitly enumerate a federal power to heavily regulate firearms.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
jet57 said:
I dunno; Trump got elected...
Click to expand...

And it was the same people that were saying Trump won't get elected that say gun control is a good thing. Excuse me if I don't give those folks much credit for making intelligent predictions.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm sure you can find comfort in that falsehood.
Click to expand...

Nothing false about it. The whole total combined left said Trump was going to lose in a landslide. The left wants gun control and a lot say that it is going to happen. I think they need to back away from the magic mushrooms for a bit and check out reality.
 
Crimefree said:
Hopefully the public will support this case and make that support known in the media. Judges also know they will not be popular if they go against public opinion nor will their political masters.
Click to expand...

I agree.
I think we need to bring back witch burning as well. As long as the majority think it is OK it is the right thing to do. Nothing better than mob rule taking away the rights of the individual. We need to get rid of that outdated bill of rights and let people know majority rules right, wrong, or otherwise. It is just too bad for you if you happen to be the minority. No rights for you.
 
jet57 said:
It's a really slanted article about an appeal to a conviction. The rest of the article is a lecture on what the writer thinks the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment are all about. Not a good report. It's based on a big "if". The stupid kid brought it all on.
Click to expand...

If it slanted you forgot to show why you think so. Nobody can respond to vague generalities expressing a personal opinion. Try and be more specific.

I'm pretty sure the writer is not stating anything new that cannot be found in the federalist papers. It is not out of place as US citizens have little vaule for the constitution. Let me give an example. You watch a guy bend down next to your vehicle and start taking off a valve cap. What do you do? Stand and watch? Shout and move in to prevent it? When government messes with the constitution like a thief in the night what do you do? Ergo constitutional rights are worth less than a tire valve cap to the majority of citizens.

Since the charge was under the commerce clause which is the foundation of the NFA it brings into question what should have been challenged in 1934 and all the other laws which rely on this so-called government power to levy taxes on firearms. Does shall not be infringed mean shall not be infringed and does government have the power to do so?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I agree.
I think we need to bring back witch burning as well. As long as the majority think it is OK it is the right thing to do. Nothing better than mob rule taking away the rights of the individual. We need to get rid of that outdated bill of rights and let people know majority rules right, wrong, or otherwise. It is just too bad for you if you happen to be the minority. No rights for you.
Click to expand...

I would not take it that far. Our constitution is pretty fair and very reasonably designed to protect us from government. The founding fathers were at pains to state that. The problem is that the constitution is OUR laws for government to obey. If we neglect to enforce our laws they become null and void. It is as simple as that. We need to do our duty and police and enforce OUR laws. We cannot appeal to government to do this for us, that would be really foolish.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm sure you can find comfort in that falsehood.
Click to expand...

Fox_zps8f0864fd.jpg
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hope Mr. Cox wins. This will affect not only gun rights but also the commerce clause and states rights. This is a HUGE case. Bigger than Heller that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I hope he wins too. I want a SBR without the federal bureaucracy and fees mandated for ownership.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066587220 said:
I hope he wins too. I want a SBR without the federal bureaucracy and fees mandated for ownership.
Click to expand...

It would be 100% certain if firearm owners got off their bums and made their voice in support heard.
 
Absentglare said:
That would be absolutely hilarious if this "worked" to overturn all gun laws, and then sane Americans respond by securing a constitutional amendment explicitly enumerate a federal power to heavily regulate firearms.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.

If anything, Nov 8 should have shown that there is more to the country than the coasts. And regarding amendments each state gets one vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom