• 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!

NRA sues Florida to block new gun law - CNN today

TurtleDude said:
as long as there are criminals and big government control freaks, the second amendment is more important today than it ever was. Liberals want to repeal it because they hate the fact that the NRA called BS on their bogus claims that gun control is crime control.
Click to expand...

No we don't. Read my post #13.
 
JacksinPA said:
The present conservative SCOTUS is nothing to depend on as far as the 2nd. The second should be repealed because it is out of date. We don't have militias any more.

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was written by 18th century lawyers. In 18th century legalese, the sole intent of these amendments were stated in the preamble: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

When this was written there were state militias & every member had a musket. But now there are no militias because we have standing armed forces. This amendment has been misused for the greedy gun makers.
Click to expand...

Repeating arms also predate the second.
 
JacksinPA said:
I think it is entirely reasonable for individuals to have guns for home defense. An AR-15 is designed as a battlefield assault weapon to kill & maim other soldiers. It has no reasonable use in a polite society. I own 2 guns: a 12-gauge pump & a .22 magnum revolver. But here in PA there is part of this nationwide mania for concealed carry permits. I drive less & less because of the specter of getting involved in an accident or road rage incident where I am unarmed but the nut in the other car is angry, high on adrenaline & has a 9mm semi-automatic handgun in his hand. No thanks!
Click to expand...

you are lying several times in this tripe you posted

1) it was not a battlefield weapon of war

2) you clearly are ignorant about armed self defense and you prove you have no understanding of it

3) you lie when you say it has no reasonable use in "polite society". that stupid opinion is belied by the fact that 20 million or more people own them and almost none are used for criminal activities. and almost every police department issues them to CIVILIAN cops which proves again your opinion is inane
 
Crovax said:
There has been no reasonable argument to raise the gun buying age to 21 that wouldn't apply to other rights
Click to expand...

So, you think that just because gun ownership rights are restricted, that voting rights should be too? That's fine, but you need to explain why.

Do you also believe that freedom of speech should be limited to those 21 and over?
 
JacksinPA said:
I find it hard to believe that a self-proclaimed liberal would defend the 2nd. It is so obviously out of touch with reality & serves only as the basis of the gun lobby.
Click to expand...

Lee is a sensible liberal. I have known him and posted with him for some time. He is 100% liberal.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's the current left wing propaganda nonsense that I guess works with those who hate gun makers but its crap that invariably comes from people who are neither gun owners nor second amendment advocates. The gun control groups are shills for the Democrat party and violent criminals
Click to expand...

Bull****! I'm sure those kids are shilling for violent criminals. All you do is reject any kind of limits on gun purchases and use. Everyone is a "gun banner" who dares to disagree with you. People are getting sick of it. You can try and brow beat me all you want but I'm sick of it too.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/us/nra-sues-florida-gun-law/index.html

(CNN)The National Rifle Association is suing the state of Florida after Gov. Rick Scott signed Senate Bill 7026 into law Friday, the first gun control legislation enacted in the state after the Parkland school massacre on February 14.

"This bill punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual," executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action Chris W. Cox said. "Securing our schools and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans are not mutually exclusive."
=================================================================
I think this mess will take most of the wind out of the sails of Rick Scott's hopes to make it to the Senate.
Click to expand...

Not familiar with everything in the florida bill but what is the basis of the suit. I mean besides what you just posted. What are they actually claiming is unconstitutional? On the surface it doesn't seem like they have a case at all. Again also please note I'm not fully familiar with the flordiqa bill and everything it does. Age restriction, waiting period and a basic outline of what teachers can have guns or be trained too? I can't say I'd ever support a blanket waiting period. The rest seems ok on the surface.
 
JacksinPA said:
The present conservative SCOTUS is nothing to depend on as far as the 2nd. The second should be repealed because it is out of date. We don't have militias any more.

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was written by 18th century lawyers. In 18th century legalese, the sole intent of these amendments were stated in the preamble: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

When this was written there were state militias & every member had a musket. But now there are no militias because we have standing armed forces. This amendment has been misused for the greedy gun makers.
Click to expand...

The right to keep and bear arms was intended for self defense (the right to life, liberty and the persuit of property). That includes self defense against a rogue militia. The Founders wrote it exactly how they meant it and they didn't mean that only members of the government militia could own guns. I mean, damn, that's what started the ****ing war; gun confiscation.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are lying several times in this tripe you posted

1) it was not a battlefield weapon of war
Click to expand...

That's just simply not true:

There’s no question that the AR-15 was created for the military. The gun was first designed by famed engineer Eugene Stoner in the late 1950s as a replacement for rifles developed during and soon after World War II. Stoner designed a “select fire” weapon that could either shoot one bullet at a time or many rounds with one sustained squeeze of the trigger. In 1959, Colt, a much larger firearms company, bought the design from Stoner’s struggling Armalite, and produced it for the military under the designation M-16
Click to expand...

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assault-rifles-ban-ar-15-weapon-of-war/

"AR" comes from the name of the gun's original manufacturer, ArmaLite, Inc. The letters stand for ArmaLite Rifle — and not for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16.
Click to expand...

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15
 
leekohler2 said:
You are entitled to your opinion. However, you have made no case as to why that is so.
Click to expand...

I made just as good a case as you do for raising the minimum age to own a gun to 21.
 
JacksinPA said:
SCOTUS has misused a number of Amendments, such as the 14th. I thought these conservatives were supposed to be 'strict constructionists'. They lost their way some years ago on that score.
Click to expand...

We are. We also understand what the 2A actually says and means. Your entire premise is flawed at it's base, showing you don't understand. Our government, the UK had, a standing army at the time of our Revolution, it was the Red Coats. The militia is specifically not the government-run military. It's is composed of armed civilians.
 
Bucky said:
The gun advocates claim they are simply a riffle organization, nothing more, nothing less.

Yet, they are sending their armed lawyers to attack their own.

The NRA is a cult.
Click to expand...

You don't know what a cult is.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Most American liberals don’t support repealing the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

When it's more widely understood that instituting gun regulations is essentially impossible due to the 2nd Amendment then I think you'll begin to see support begin to dissolve in the same way you see support dissolving for the NRA now.
 
If the sales of guns are to be restricted by age, then those who are too young should be able to get a waiver from their CO if they are in the military and are otherwise eligible. The use of guns by those under 21 could still be done under adult supervision.
I know some "kids" who are mentally well over 21, and some "adults" who are still flaky at age 30...
 
apdst said:
If 18 y/o's are too immature to own guns, they too immature to vote.
Click to expand...

In that is the case ... then they are too immature to be drafted or to enlist in the armed forces.
 
Fishking said:
You don't know what a cult is.
Click to expand...


While I would never say they are a cult, they do have a lot of problems, which is why I have not been able to support them for quite some time, even though I do indeed support the 2nd. See the article I posted in post #13.
 
minnie616 said:
In that is the case ... then they are too immature to be drafted or to enlist in the armed forces.
Click to expand...

Let's not give young men on shaky ground 3 years to go to jail or addiction. Better, discipline and self worth.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's not give young men on shaky ground 3 years to go to jail or addiction. Better, discipline and self worth.
Click to expand...

Agreed- some young people definitely benefit from enlistment.
 
leekohler2 said:
From what I read their case is pretty weak. Raising the age for gun purchases is not going to be found unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Turn 18, Join the Marines, carry Fully Auto Machine guns, go on leave, get told you're not allowed to buy a rifle...
 
Cardinal said:
When it's more widely understood that instituting gun regulations is essentially impossible due to the 2nd Amendment then I think you'll begin to see support begin to dissolve in the same way you see support dissolving for the NRA now.
Click to expand...

Certainly possible. And each successive generation will probably lean more and more that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom