• 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!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?


  • Total voters
    61
Boy but you folks like to don the referee shirt and render a verdict don't you? And surprise surprise, you always render a verdict which has you winning and the other side losing. That is amazing.

Need a tissue? Your fail is entirely your own.


The only thing I have conceded is making an error in the number I was using. And the number is irrelevant to the principle involved and the fundamental difference between the power to interpret the law and the Constitution

Nope. You kept saying "hundreds" because in a number of cases that large (so you imply), there would have had to have been plenty of interpretation of the Constitution. That's why you kept insisting it was "hundreds."


One power (to interpret the law and Constitution) is used in the application of the second (judicial review) .

Then go for it, champ. Let's see how they did it. I mean, come on -- in 12 cases with 11 decisions issued, this shouldn't be a tough order.
 
You know what I find so adorably cute here? You libertarians stick together like glue and defend each other with such loyalty and fervor. It reminds of the Pink Lady gang from GREASE. In a dog eat dog world its cute that you all do this for each other because you all subscribe to the same ideology and have all swallowed the same kool-aid.

And my point is simple no matter how many frankenstien monsters you want to construct to deflect from it.

There is a difference between the power to interpret the law and the power to use that in the use of the additional power of Judicial Review. But some of you are like a little mangey dog who has grabbed onto a bone and cannot let it go... even if its not the bone of contention.
 
You know what I find so adorably cute here? You libertarians stick together like glue and defend each other with such loyalty and fervor. It reminds of the Pink Lady gang from GREASE. In a dog eat dog world its cute that you all do this for each other because you all subscribe to the same ideology and have all swallowed the same kool-aid.

And my point is simple no matter how many frankenstien monsters you want to construct to deflect from it.

There is a difference between the power to interpret the law and the power to use that in the use of the additional power of Judicial Review. But some of you are like a little mangey dog who has grabbed onto a bone and cannot let it go... even if its not the bone of contention.
Like I said, it always winds up with an ad hominem. :)
 
Ad hominem is attack. i was praising your unflinching loyalty to each of your fellow True Believers. It is inspiring and rare in a cold and cruel world. What makes it even more rare is how you completely will ignore the defects in your own fellows arguments or are so easy to forgive their errors. We live in a world where everyone seems to be saying "Spartacus? You want Spartacus? Thats him right there." You folks cling to the old fashioned virtues of sticking together no matter what.
 
How many referees do you get to appoint on the court at one time?
 
Ad hominem is attack. i was praising your unflinching loyalty to each of your fellow True Believers. It is inspiring and rare in a cold and cruel world. What makes it even more rare is how you completely will ignore the defects in your own fellows arguments or are so easy to forgive their errors. We live in a world where everyone seems to be saying "Spartacus? You want Spartacus? Thats him right there." You folks cling to the old fashioned virtues of sticking together no matter what.

Oh, right. "True Believers" isn't an attack, not at all.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Look, you want to get the better of us? Step up your game. Or don't wander in places where you know you don't HAVE game.
 
You know what I find so adorably cute here?
Your attempt to change the subject away from your abject failure?
Your desire to argue the person, not the argument?
Your inability to display any degree of intellectual honesty and admit that you are wrong?
Your incessant need to equivocate?
You finding yourself in the middle of a self-induced 'epic faill' and resorting to ad hom?

You libertarians stick together like glue and defend each other with such loyalty and fervor. It reminds of the Pink Lady gang from GREASE. In a dog eat dog world its cute that you all do this for each other because you all subscribe to the same ideology and have all swallowed the same kool-aid.
Here you are, arguing the person, not the point he makes.

There is a difference between the power to interpret the law...
This was never up for discussion - it is, however, an example of your equivocation.

and the power to use that in the use of the additional power of Judicial Review
This is where you refuse to admit that you are wrong, in that the court's ENTIRE power to interpret the constitution comes from Marbury's Judicial Review.

But some of you are like a little mangey dog who has grabbed onto a bone and cannot let it go...
And thus, the ad hom.

That pain in your side? Its the fork that's been stuck in you.
 
Last edited:
Ad hominem is attack. i was praising your unflinching loyalty to each of your fellow True Believers. It is inspiring and rare in a cold and cruel world. What makes it even more rare is how you completely will ignore the defects in your own fellows arguments or are so easy to forgive their errors. We live in a world where everyone seems to be saying "Spartacus? You want Spartacus? Thats him right there." You folks cling to the old fashioned virtues of sticking together no matter what.
Yeah, yeah, everyone is wrong but you. Life is so damn cruel sometimes, ain't it?
 
Its cute how you think of yourselves as "us". Looks like i was correct about the gang mentality and the last few posts prove it.

Me change the subject?!?!?!?!?

Goobie still has not answered the question that was prompted by his post way back six pages ago.

Do you agree with the same leftists that you took a potshot at that the Constitution is open to interpretation?
Or do you insist that the Constitution is not open to interpretation?

That was the subject six pages ago and has not been spoken to except by me over and over and over again.

And for a gang that likes to criticize others for attacking them, you certainly bare your fangs and claws over and over again towards anyone who is not a True Believer. Of course that is understandable. The greatest threat to the True Believer is one who who is not.
 
How many referees do you get to appoint on the court at one time?
The number is inversely proportional to the amount of fail expected.

So in this case the number is roughly zero.
 
boy did that point go right over your head! Even in denying you are a referee you invoke the authority to be one.

six pages later and still waiting for goobies answer.
 
Last edited:
Sorry - bad number again - its been ten pages and Goobieman still has yet to answer the question.

Can we go for twenty? I have every bit of faith you all can do it together.
 
boy did that point go right over your head! Even in denying you are a referee you invoke the authority to be one.
six pages later and still waiting for goobies answer.
Only because you're too busy trying to remain relevant and aren't paying attention to what's posted.
 
Only because you're too busy trying to remain relevant and aren't paying attention to what's posted.

Not for the first time in the thread, either.
 
Here is the text of the 2nd amendment.



Going strictly by what is written, restrictions on the purchase of firearms seem to be constitutional. Agree or disagree?

Note that I'm not asking whether they are a good idea or not, that's a separate debate. I'm only asking whether they are constitutional.

I voted Other.

Only in EXTREME cases (nuclear arms, flame-throwers, grenade launchers) are firearms to be restricted. Otherwise, they are not.
 
still waiting for the answer to the question that started all this smoke and mirrors in the first place

when the daily gang meeting breaks up maybe Goobieman will provide an answer after ten pages of waiting and asking?
 
Last edited:
still waiting for the answer to the question that started all this smoke and mirrors in the first place
I answered your question when you asked it, and I provided a link to that answer just recently.
Wipe the snot off your face and go find it.
 
Back
Top Bottom