• 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 Carrier Kills an Unarmed Man

Rucker61 said:
Yes, I know that you're a gun owner. Heller protects AR-15s and magazines. If you support Heller, you wouldn't be suggesting any further restrictions.
Click to expand...

His posting history is one who appears to be upset that he lives under the control of Bannerrhoid politicians who continue to pass stupid laws. Rather than fight those stupid laws, he wants to spread the misery and make all of America have the same laws that California does. You won't see any principled argument from him or any facts supporting why he wants the rest of us to suffer Californication/ But then again, he thinks any magazine that holds 10+ rounds is ONLY FOR WARFARE.
 
Rucker61 said:
Just because the right isn't unrestricted doesn't mean that any restriction can be put into place. Both Miller and Heller protect AR-15s and magazines, and McDonald extends that protections to the state.

The term "gun control" is meaningless without details.
Click to expand...

there is no honest "restriction" on the second amendment. its one of the biggest frauds in American jurisprudence to proclaim that what was intended to be a blanket restriction on the new federal government, is somehow "limited" by some expansion of the commerce clause.
 
jet57 said:
So the Supreme Court is dead wrong on constitutional issues.

Interesting, I hadn't herd that.

And, since states have such restrictions, as did the federal government for 10 years, that makes you wrong doesn't it.
Click to expand...

You still seem to be of the opinion the supreme court is the highest authority on our laws. That just makes you wrong does it not?
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no honest "restriction" on the second amendment. its one of the biggest frauds in American jurisprudence to proclaim that what was intended to be a blanket restriction on the new federal government, is somehow "limited" by some expansion of the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever guaranteed citizens they would not have to defend the constitution.
 
Crimefree said:
You still seem to be of the opinion the supreme court is the highest authority on our laws. That just makes you wrong does it not?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't: the SC decides on constitutional matters. Those laws are the ones by which the country sets the standard. So, you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
jet57 said:
No it doesn't: the SC decides on constitutional matters. Those laws are the ones by which the country sets the standard. So, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Other than a silly claim and total ignorance of the law you don;t seem to have contributed much. Certainly nothing you could prove correct.

The SC can only determine what it thinks is constitutional as a government agent. It is not above the constitution or even on the same level. You appear to have forgotten who's laws and rights the constitution is at pains to remind government thereof and the consequences of not being mindful of the peoples laws.

Apparently I do know what I'm talking about unless you can prove different.
 
Crimefree said:
Other than a silly claim and total ignorance of the law you don;t seem to have contributed much. Certainly nothing you could prove correct.

The SC can only determine what it thinks is constitutional as a government agent. It is not above the constitution or even on the same level. You appear to have forgotten who's laws and rights the constitution is at pains to remind government thereof and the consequences of not being mindful of the peoples laws.

Apparently I do know what I'm talking about unless you can prove different.
Click to expand...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
Click to expand...

You're wrong again. And as I said, you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Crimefree said:
You still seem to be of the opinion the supreme court is the highest authority on our laws. That just makes you wrong does it not?
Click to expand...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
Click to expand...

No, it makes you wrong.
 
jet57 said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx


No, it makes you wrong.
Click to expand...

arguing by proxy is really pathetic. Why don't you tell us that the language of the constitution was intended to allow the government-pursuant to Article One, Section 8, to OVERRIDE an AMENDMENT that by all normal parameters is SUPERIOR to the constitution when it comes to the issue it deals with

come on Jet-lets see you argue that the commerce clause was properly interpreted to find such a power and that power actually supersedes the Second Amendment and the tenth amendment

give it a shot rather than arguing by proxy
 
jet57 said:
So this story about Michael Mcknight has been all over the news of late and I just ran across it again. The shooter was let go, due to stand your ground lawsd they say, but the point here is that we now have yet \another example of why the presence of a gun means somebody;s gonna get shot.

The shooter had been in trouble before and was known bad behavior, so, over an argument, a good man is killed by some nut who should not have been around guns: but the law says it's okay and thus it ends like it did...

Here's just one story on it, you can find others everywhere:

Sheriff: McKnight shooting was 'road rage'; defends case - SFGate
Click to expand...

And without guns no one would die of guns in wars. Without cars no one would die in car accidents. Without bombs the Boston Bomber wouldn't have bombed Boston. Without planes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Without knives no one would get stabbed. Without axes there would be no axe murderers. Without pools no one would die in a pool. And just to get REALLY silly and hyperbolic...without skin we wouldn't get skin cancer.

You have an idiotic argument. A very old and tired argument that has been shown to be idiotic more times than I can count. Yes jet, it is painfully obvious that without something then nothing bad associated with that something would happen. Doesn't mean that you get rid of it or ban it or have it so highly regulated that only those in power have those items. There are plenty of good things that happen with guns also. I know, you like to ignore those as it doesn't suit your agenda. Well, go right ahead and ignore them. It won't make them go away no matter how much you want them to do so. Guns are here to stay. Deal with it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And without guns no one would die of guns in wars. Without cars no one would die in car accidents. Without bombs the Boston Bomber wouldn't have bombed Boston. Without planes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Without knives no one would get stabbed. Without axes there would be no axe murderers. Without pools no one would die in a pool. And just to get REALLY silly and hyperbolic...without skin we wouldn't get skin cancer.

You have an idiotic argument. A very old and tired argument that has been shown to be idiotic more times than I can count. Yes jet, it is painfully obvious that without something then nothing bad associated with that something would happen. Doesn't mean that you get rid of it or ban it or have it so highly regulated that only those in power have those items. There are plenty of good things that happen with guns also. I know, you like to ignore those as it doesn't suit your agenda. Well, go right ahead and ignore them. It won't make them go away no matter how much you want them to do so. Guns are here to stay. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Just nonsense. Drivel.
 
jet57 said:
Just nonsense. Drivel.
Click to expand...

I assume you are agreeing with Kal'stang because the normal way in debate to disagree would be to offer some reasoned pertinent argument. As it stands you are in agreement with his point about your claims.
 
jet57 said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx


No, it makes you wrong.
Click to expand...

You forgot to explain why so I had to guess. In future such asinine comment with be answered in kind.

No it does not the SC is a legal entity and is subject to the constitution. To put it more bluntly the SC is an arm of government supposedly independent but selected by government. It therefore cannot and will never be bipartisan. It would be like saying the constitution was designed to limit government but government makes the decision on what limits it has. This is obviously a most undesirable situation but one government has tried to foster in proclaiming itself the master.

The constitution is the peoples laws which government must obey. Prove that wrong

If the constitution is the peoples laws who polices and enforces it? Under normal circumstances and dealing with legal matters the SC preforms this task but who does the SC answer to? The people or government? When the SC steps out of line for any reason it is the people who are empowered to correct this by petitioning government and if that fails by remove at the ballot box or by force if need be.

Obviously if citizens took this oversight duty more seriously no bad laws would be passed in the first place. Apparently citizens prefer to wait until TSHTF :hitsfan:
 
Crimefree said:
I assume you are agreeing with Kal'stang because the normal way in debate to disagree would be to offer some reasoned pertinent argument. As it stands you are in agreement with his point about your claims.
Click to expand...

And without guns no one would die of guns in wars.
Click to expand...

That stupid statement says it all right there. There is nothing reasonable in anything in that post. It;s just desperate emotionalizing and not worth the time it takes to type an answer.

You're sort of bordering on that now.
 
Crimefree said:
You forgot to explain why so I had to guess. In future such asinine comment with be answered in kind.

No it does not the SC is a legal entity and is subject to the constitution. To put it more bluntly the SC is an arm of government supposedly independent but selected by government. It therefore cannot and will never be bipartisan. It would be like saying the constitution was designed to limit government but government makes the decision on what limits it has. This is obviously a most undesirable situation but one government has tried to foster in proclaiming itself the master.

The constitution is the peoples laws which government must obey. Prove that wrong

If the constitution is the peoples laws who polices and enforces it? Under normal circumstances and dealing with legal matters the SC preforms this task but who does the SC answer to? The people or government? When the SC steps out of line for any reason it is the people who are empowered to correct this by petitioning government and if that fails by remove at the ballot box or by force if need be.

Obviously if citizens took this oversight duty more seriously no bad laws would be passed in the first place. Apparently citizens prefer to wait until TSHTF :hitsfan:
Click to expand...

The explanation is in the link: read it.

Good luck.
 
jet57 said:
Protecting yourself is one thing, but shooting an unarmed man is entirely something else. How about addressing that.
Click to expand...

Shooting an unarmed person is a crime. Owning a firearm is a right. What don't you understand?
 
flogger said:
I have the inherent right to defend myself but just not with guns. How does that make me a peasant and a slave with no rights whatsoever ? :doh
Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed. If you have the inherent right to defend yourself, then you have the right to do so by whatever means necessary. Once you are forcibly limited in your ability to protect yourself, then you are as a human, less empowered than others that do have that right. That means you are lower in the feudal system than say a government servant who is supposed to be below you by the construct of our Constitution.
 
jdog said:
Shooting an unarmed person is a crime. Owning a firearm is a right. What don't you understand?
Click to expand...

A stupid person owning a gun and shooting to death an unarmed person is a bastardization of a right that got someone killed.
 
jet57 said:
The explanation is in the link: read it.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I have read it.

What statement do you claim refutes what I have posted? Good grief can you not produce a reasonable rebuttal and must resort to some smartass generalised statement that was just a waste of keyboard strokes?
 
jet57 said:
A stupid person owning a gun and shooting to death an unarmed person is a bastardization of a right that got someone killed.
Click to expand...

How do you know they are stupid?

How did a right get somebody killed?
 
jet57 said:
That stupid statement says it all right there. There is nothing reasonable in anything in that post. It;s just desperate emotionalizing and not worth the time it takes to type an answer.
Click to expand...

Good grief you are fond of posting drivel responses. If you had anything reasonable it say it got lost in this emotional meltdown. Do try and rebut what is claimed instead or the unevidenced and frankly idiotic dismissals you post as responses.

And without guns no one would die of guns in wars.
Click to expand...

Why have you falsely attributed this to my post?

You're sort of bordering on that now.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem, the refuge of the morally bankrupt.
 
jet57 said:
Protecting yourself is one thing, but shooting an unarmed man is entirely something else. How about addressing that.
Click to expand...

Answer one question Jet....Can an unarmed man cause you grevious bodily harm or kill you?
 
jet57 said:
A stupid person owning a gun and shooting to death an unarmed person is a bastardization of a right that got someone killed.
Click to expand...

They are separate issues. It is a liberal propaganda trick to combine separate issues to confuse people who cannot recognize the tactic.
 
Crimefree said:
Unlike you I have read it.

What statement do you claim refutes what I have posted? Good grief can you not produce a reasonable rebuttal and must resort to some smartass generalised statement that was just a waste of keyboard strokes?
Click to expand...

You said
You still seem to be of the opinion the supreme court is the highest authority on our laws. That just makes you wrong does it not?
Click to expand...

Post 257; My source and my quote of that source highlighted like this shows conclusively that you are wrong.

So, you have not read it and you cannot refute the proof.

I'm not getting on your merry go 'round dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom