• 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!

Democratic Reps Boycott Moment of Silence for Las Vegas Victims

ludin said:
Yes when you start bringing in nuclear weapons and such nonsense it becomes a strawman. making explosives is perfectly legal. it if funny you mention nuclear bombs.
it is perfectly legal to build a nuclear device. what is illegal is owning the uranium.



actually it doesn't. actually it would based on past precedent, but you ignored that fact. the government would have a huge uphill battle to violate the rights of 98% of gun owners.
now are you are moving into an appeal to emotion argument vs a constitutional based logical one.

yes it was why did you ignore the links i gave you?

it was right there in the paragraph you quoted. that is the problem with you people you only read what you want to read and ignore everything that says you are wrong.
Click to expand...

98% of gun owners don't own military style semi automatic assault rifles.....try again.

Not everything is based on past precedent. Some cases are cases of first impression. You have to understand Constitutional analysis when dealing with a inherent right. The Court looks to see if there is a compelling governmental interest to support the infringement on the right. There is no requirement for the government to show that the item is "produced for the sole purpose of unlawful action". That has never been the standard.
 
disneydude said:
98% of gun owners don't own military style semi automatic assault rifles.....try again.
Click to expand...

they don't have to own one. just have the right to buy one. you evidently don't know the difference.

Not everything is based on past precedent. Some cases are cases of first impression. You have to understand Constitutional analysis when dealing with a inherent right. The Court looks to see if there is a compelling governmental interest to support the infringement on the right. There is no requirement for the government to show that the item is "produced for the sole purpose of unlawful action". That has never been the standard.
Click to expand...

umm all cases are based on past precedent. that is why we still have that crappy reading of the commerce clause still in place along with other horrible rulings. all due to precedent.
You seem to ignore constitutional analysis when dealing with a right. You fire in a theater decision was overturned in 1960.

Please see the article i gave you.

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried.

here, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

so this standard would apply to other rights that the government is attempting to violate.
the government has to show that there is a greater threat at a very high level to take away the rights of someone.

In this case they have have to show that taking away the rights of 98% of legal gun owners is valid.
they simply cannot meet this standard.
 
disneydude said:
Supreme Court says you are wrong. Sorry Charlie
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean a thing to someone who thinks the SCOTUS can't interpret the law.
 
What's interesting is the Left will advocate that gun bans, like Australia's, will stop shootings all together.

First off, it has not. There have been shootings that have taken place since after their law took affect, at least the ones reported (we're not even sure if they were the only shootings that took place because it sounds like their media is as dishonest as ours). Second, the population in Australia is far smaller than ours, so yeah the numbers of deaths won't be as great as ours. That doesn't mean the number of shootings is far less than ours (again, we don't know the number because their media doesn't report it).

Finally, it hasn't stopped murder or mass killings in the country of Australia, with or without a gun. There have been arson, gassing, vehicles, and stabbing attacks causing many to die. So really the gun laws they put into place has done NOTHING to prevent murder from taking place. Shootings still take place, killing is still a thing to bad people over there, and no gun control law will stop these people. "Well, it stopped mass shootings from happening." We don't know that, and the media, whether it be theirs or ours, won't report it to us if it happens. The fact that people still die from guns and by other means is proof of that.

The first step towards an oppressive government IS taking away their people's protection, and the right to even protect themselves. Look at China, North Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and a bunch of other of these Marxist countries. Australia isn't what I would call a "free" country, either.
 
disneydude said:
Where are you legally allowed to buy a fully automatic assault rifle?
Click to expand...

You can purchase any full automatic weapons from a class 3 arms dealer. You must submit to an 8 month back ground check and pay a 250 tax stamp for each rifle. also it has to be made before 1986.
https://www.quora.com/In-which-states-is-it-legal-to-own-a-fully-automatic-weapon

there are state regulations, but most comply with federal law.

the reason they are expensive is the price and the difficulty to sell and purchase them, but they are 100% legal to own.
 
ludin said:
they don't have to own one. just have the right to buy one. you evidently don't know the difference.



umm all cases are based on past precedent. that is why we still have that crappy reading of the commerce clause still in place along with other horrible rulings. all due to precedent.
You seem to ignore constitutional analysis when dealing with a right. You fire in a theater decision was overturned in 1960.

Please see the article i gave you.

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried.

here, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

so this standard would apply to other rights that the government is attempting to violate.
the government has to show that there is a greater threat at a very high level to take away the rights of someone.

In this case they have have to show that taking away the rights of 98% of legal gun owners is valid.
they simply cannot meet this standard.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. There is a reason why fully automatic assault weapons are illegal.
 
disneydude said:
Sure they can. There is a reason why fully automatic assault weapons are illegal.
Click to expand...

they aren't illegal.

you are able to legally buy an automatic rifle.
you seriously have no clue what you are talking about.
 
American said:
Democratic Reps Boycott Moment of Silence for Las Vegas Victims | Fox News Insider


These people are shameless, but what's new about that? They started right into the gun control debate immediately after the massacre, RIGHT ON QUEUE. Why not continue the disrespect by including all Americans, Vegas victims and everyone else who believes in the Constitution. Why is it that whenever there's a shooting, Democrat immediately target those who didn't do it? I guess they've also become a godless bunch who don't like to pray. :roll:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/dem...hanges-after-las-vegas-shooting-massacre.html
Click to expand...

Regardless of anything. That was over-the-top.
 
disneydude said:
I'm tired of the right-wing using the "honor the victim" talking point to avoid having the conversation and continuing to do nothing. Its not an option any longer.
Click to expand...
No worse than how the left uses children but I agree both sides should temper their emotional pleas

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
disneydude said:
Yep....because doing nothing is no longer an option. We are tired of the right-wing telling us that we can't have the conversation. No more excuses.
Click to expand...
Please.... who are you that you think you have the authority to tell people what is no longer an option?

If the GOP had any balls they would loosen gun control laws as a response to all this grandstanding by the left. The louder you cry the more they should deregulate gun ownership laws.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
disneydude said:
Its time to get the NRA out of Congress. Start by passing a law to eliminate semi-automatic weapons (which can be modified to be similar to automatics). There is no legitimate reason why anyone needs to own one (and its not a slippery slope to come after yer guns). Second, pass a law outlawing high capacity magazines. Again...no reason why anyone should have them. Require national gun registration so that people cannot go from state to state stockpiling weapons and ammunition.
Click to expand...
So you think banning revolvers (semi automatics) is a reasonable response. You think gun owners should be reduced to only being able to posses bolt action rifles and pack and load guns.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
disneydude said:
An expected response. No one has a "right" to own an assault style weapon...any more than someone has a "right" to own hand grenades, body armor and missles. Crimes are committed by legal gun owners all the time....Vegas is a case in point. There is no legitimate reason for people to own semi-automatics that can be easily modified. Because I want it....is no longer a justification.
Click to expand...
Because I want it was never the justification in the first place but like it or not that is more of an explication than your entitled too. Gun owners are not obligated to justify their choices to you or anyone else. They are exercising their constitutionally protected right. That's all you need to know. They may have them because they enjoy masterbating over their collection, it's NONE of your business.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
disneydude said:
The 2nd Amendment and any amendment for that matter are not without limitations. If you understand Constitutional Law, limits can be placed on any Amendment so long as there is a compelling governmental interest at stake. There is no "right" to own a semi-automatic assault type rifle. there is no "right" to own high capacity magazines. Making these weapons illegal does not take away anyone's second amendment right to "keep and bear arms"....there are plenty of weapons that they can purchase.
Click to expand...
There's one thing that is included in the 2A that is unique to all the others. It specifically says that it's a right that may not be infringed upon. I would argue that giving up your right to own the things they have given up is an infringement of the right as it is written. While you argue for greater infringement (which is your right) I argue for less.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Please.... who are you that you think you have the authority to tell people what is no longer an option?

If the GOP had any balls they would loosen gun control laws as a response to all this grandstanding by the left. The louder you cry the more they should deregulate gun ownership laws.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Because enough is enough. We've sat back and let these happen time and again and have done nothing. That is no longer an option. The overwhelming majority of this country want something done and favor reasonable regulations. Its time to do the will of the people...not the NRA.
 
trouble13 said:
Because I want it was never the justification in the first place but like it or not that is more of an explication than your entitled too. Gun owners are not obligated to justify their choices to you or anyone else. They are exercising their constitutionally protected right. That's all you need to know. They may have them because they enjoy masterbating over their collection, it's NONE of your business.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is no Constitutional right to own a semi automatic assault type weapon.
 
trouble13 said:
There's one thing that is included in the 2A that is unique to all the others. It specifically says that it's a right that may not be infringed upon. I would argue that giving up your right to own the things they have given up is an infringement of the right as it is written. While you argue for greater infringement (which is your right) I argue for less.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree that the 2nd amendment protects a individual persons right to keep and bear arms. But like everything in the Constitution nothing is absolute without limit. The right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed but certainly the types of weapons can. Heller left that question open and certainly indicated that the Constitution would allow certain classes of weapons to be limited.
 
ludin said:
You can purchase any full automatic weapons from a class 3 arms dealer. You must submit to an 8 month back ground check and pay a 250 tax stamp for each rifle. also it has to be made before 1986.
https://www.quora.com/In-which-states-is-it-legal-to-own-a-fully-automatic-weapon

there are state regulations, but most comply with federal law.

the reason they are expensive is the price and the difficulty to sell and purchase them, but they are 100% legal to own.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about transferring ownership of one grandfathered in? Because you certainly cannot buy one anymore post 1986. Most gun nuts would cry that this violates the 2nd Amendment as well.
 
disneydude said:
Are you talking about transferring ownership of one grandfathered in? Because you certainly cannot buy one anymore post 1986. Most gun nuts would cry that this violates the 2nd Amendment as well.
Click to expand...

you can still buy one. it doesn't matter if it is transfer you are still buying an automatic weapon.
 
disneydude said:
Its not a strawman argument at all. If the 2nd amendment protects all weapons....where exactly do YOU draw the line. I'm very curious to know.

As for the rest:

The strictest scrutiny is a "compelling governmental interest" (Exactly what I originally said).
I don't believe it would be difficult for the government to make a compelling case, in light of incidents like Vegas and Orlando, Sandy hook...etc.....to show that the government's compelling interest at protecting life outweighs the desire of a person to possess a military style assault weapon. It would not require the government to show that it is produced for the sole purpose of unlawful action...I have no idea where you came up with that....that has never been the standard.
Click to expand...
I like this argument that your making about the gov being able to make a compelling argument. I have a compelling counter argument that you and I might actually find some common ground on.

I'm gonna illustrate it using nukes as my example because that's the extreme example many pro gun advocates use. It's far fetched to believe a private citizen could posses the ability to obtain a nuke even if it was legal but let's agree as improbable as it might be it's a possibility. You will rightfully agree that me having a nuke is unacceptable, I will counter with ok if it's unreasonable for me to have one than its also unreasonable for the gov to have them. Make them illegal for everyone and I willingly surrender my enumerated right to have one. Isn't that fair?

I don't like needing to be armed or my neighbors being armed to such extremes and if the military disarms so will i.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
disneydude said:
I'm tired of the right-wing using the "honor the victim" talking point to avoid having the conversation and continuing to do nothing. Its not an option any longer.
Click to expand...

And I am tired of liberals of emoting and using meaningless talking points like 'do something' when they have nothing to offer in the way of solutions. Now sanctimonious leftists cant even be bothered with decency in the wake of a tragedy. Not even a 30 second moment of silence can be allowed to stand in the way of their mindless partisanship. You are cheering on an empty, mindless political stunt. How about you try and ad something substantive.
 
ludin said:
you can still buy one. it doesn't matter if it is transfer you are still buying an automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

Technically yes....but there are severe limits placed on ones ability to obtain one. Does the 1986 ban in your view constitute an unconstitutional infringement?
 
Fletch said:
And I am tired of liberals of emoting and using meaningless talking points like 'do something' when they have nothing to offer in the way of solutions. Now sanctimonious leftists cant even be bothered with decency in the wake of a tragedy. Not even a 30 second moment of silence can be allowed to stand in the way of their mindless partisanship. You are cheering on an empty, mindless political stunt. How about you try and ad something substantive.
Click to expand...

There is nothing decent about the slaughter of innocent lives....and the shaming by the NRA and gun nuts to anyone who speaks out is not going to be tolerated any longer. Enough is enough. Sitting back and doing nothing, which is what the NRA wants...if no longer acceptable. The American people want something done and its time that Congress stop being pawns of the NRA and either do something or get voted out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom