• 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!

Supreme Court May Take Action On State Assault Weapon Bans

countryboy said:
Don't like the 2A, then start a movement to abolish it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Laughable, unthinking response. The 2A is here to stay.

But how about you knuckle-draggers come up with some solutions, other than "more guns", to start addressing the obvious gun violence problem in this country? But you won't and can't. Mouth breathing Neanderthals aren't capable of reasonable and rational thought.
 
domer76 said:
Laughable, unthinking response. The 2A is here to stay.

But how about you knuckle-draggers come up with some solutions, other than "more guns", to start addressing the obvious gun violence problem in this country? But you won't and can't. Mouth breathing Neanderthals aren't capable of reasonable and rational thought.
Click to expand...

It's clear you and your ilk cannot enact the "gun control" you desire, with the 2A in place. Why not just be honest?

All you have are insults and ad hom. Good luck with that.
 
domer76 said:
Spare me the inanimate object BS. The reason we have the highest incidence of gun violence in the western world is because of the shear numbers and ease of access. Why that is not painfully obvious to anyone is beyond me.
Click to expand...

One, you didn't answer my question. I'll re-ask and even rephrase for ya: If self defense and suicide are not illegal then why refer to them?

Second, I know, the fact that guns are inanimate objects does not play well into the typical meme of guns are violent blah blah blah. But plain fact of the matter is that they are inanimate. They cannot do jack. People are the ones that are violent. If you want to actually reduce the violence people commit with guns then you need to actually focus on and work on getting policies that will actually fix the problem. Better mental health, better education, both justice reform and prison reform, and reducing poverty are all excellent things to focus on that will all dramatically decrease over all crime, which includes crimes that people commit with guns. Focusing on an inanimate object as a reason for crimes is weak sauce and nothing more than a meme.
 
domer76 said:
Laughable, unthinking response. The 2A is here to stay.

But how about you knuckle-draggers come up with some solutions, other than "more guns", to start addressing the obvious gun violence problem in this country? But you won't and can't. Mouth breathing Neanderthals aren't capable of reasonable and rational thought.
Click to expand...

Well, this particular knuckle-dragger has come up with 5 different areas to focus on and work on that will fix a lot of the problem of people committing crime over all...and not one single one has anything to do with gun control. I've even posted it multiple times through out several posts across many threads. Anti-gun fascists love to ignore it though.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The fact that in reality guns do not commit violence. People commit violence. Guns are inanimate objects incapable of doing anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, riiiight... Drugs don't do anything either and in 1945 that Atom was just sitting there, until some-body...

Can you legally buy heroin, or cocaine, or meth amphetamines? Can you perhaps legally buy an atom bomb?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nope, its a tragic accident caused by the mishandling of a tool.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. That "tool" logic has been used before and failed: a personal firearm is designed strictly to kill. So such an incident would be categorized as act of a child death by gun, which is a social and cultural problem.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, riiiight... Drugs don't do anything either and in 1945 that Atom was just sitting there, until some-body...

Can you legally buy heroin, or cocaine, or meth amphetamines? Can you perhaps legally buy an atom bomb?
Click to expand...

None of those are Constitutional Rights. Try again.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, no. That "tool" logic has been used before and failed: a personal firearm is designed strictly to kill. So such an incident would be categorized as act of a child death by gun, which is a social and cultural problem.
Click to expand...

Guns do not cause anything. It's an inanimate object. That is one fact that you will never be able to get past. No matter how you phrase it, there will always be a human element required in anything to do with a gun, or any other tool for that matter. No gun could have killed any child on its own. None. Zilch. Zero. Notta. That is the other fact that you simply cannot stop no matter how much you spin and twist words.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Guns do not cause anything. It's an inanimate object. That is one fact that you will never be able to get past. No matter how you phrase it, there will always be a human element required in anything to do with a gun, or any other tool for that matter. No gun could have killed any child on its own. None. Zilch. Zero. Notta. That is the other fact that you simply cannot stop no matter how much you spin and twist words.
Click to expand...

Heroin doesn't do anything either does it. FIRE doesn't do anything when there's no reason for it start, but if somebody puts an accelerant in your home...

"No gun will have killed any child on it's own", what a weak thing to say: no rattlesnake is going to break in and climb a kid's crib to bite 'em either...

Your inanimate object only works up to the point of crime, just like the other inanimate objects that I exampled. THAT is the fact that gets certain weapons banned. And THAT is a fact that you can't get around with a ridiculous argument like "inanimate object".
 
jet57 said:
Heroin doesn't do anything either does it. FIRE doesn't do anything when there's no reason for it start, but if somebody puts an accelerant in your home...
Click to expand...

On its own, no, heroin doesn't do a thing. Unless a human being uses it. Fire can be started by nature, however if someone puts an accelerant for the purpose of burning down that home...guess what...it was caused by a human being. Nothing else.

jet57 said:
"No gun will have killed any child on it's own", what a weak thing to say: no rattlesnake is going to break in and climb a kid's crib to bite 'em either...
Click to expand...

A rattlesnake is a living thing. Comparing a rattlesnake and a gun is like comparing apples to bolts on a car. One is alive, the other is inanimate can can't do crap on its own.

jet57 said:
Your inanimate object only works up to the point of crime, just like the other inanimate objects that I exampled. THAT is the fact that gets certain weapons banned. And THAT is a fact that you can't get around with a ridiculous argument like "inanimate object".
Click to expand...

Your examples didn't help ya in the slightest. Easily shown that your examples are worthless without a human component. Heroin? Requires humans to use. Atom bomb, requires humans to use. Cocaine & meth, requires humans to use. All of the examples that you gave are harmless until someone uses them improperly. Even an atom bomb is worthless until used. Not to mention NONE of your examples help in the slightest with personal self defense. So you may want to try again with different examples.

jet57 said:
Uh, noooo. Your 'inanimate object" argument is trashed.
Click to expand...

:lamo Not nearly as trashed as your claim that guns cause deaths. I've yet to see or hear of one single gun ever getting up and walking around shooting people all by its lonesome. Every single time I hear that its some stupid retard human using the gun illegally. Until such time as a gun actually gets up and walks around shooting people on its own your argument is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
 
Kal'Stang said:
On its own, no, heroin doesn't do a thing. Unless a human being uses it. Fire can be started by nature, however if someone puts an accelerant for the purpose of burning down that home...guess what...it was caused by a human being. Nothing else.



A rattlesnake is a living thing. Comparing a rattlesnake and a gun is like comparing apples to bolts on a car. One is alive, the other is inanimate can can't do crap on its own.



Your examples didn't help ya in the slightest. Easily shown that your examples are worthless without a human component. Heroin? Requires humans to use. Atom bomb, requires humans to use. Cocaine & meth, requires humans to use. All of the examples that you gave are harmless until someone uses them improperly. Even an atom bomb is worthless until used. Not to mention NONE of your examples help in the slightest with personal self defense. So you may want to try again with different examples.



:lamo Not nearly as trashed as your claim that guns cause deaths. I've yet to see or hear of one single gun ever getting up and walking around shooting people all by its lonesome. Every single time I hear that its some stupid retard human using the gun illegally. Until such time as a gun actually gets up and walks around shooting people on its own your argument is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
Click to expand...

Here's the simple truth that you barrel-strokers wish to avoid. This country has the easiest access to guns and the most prevelance of guns in the western world. And we have the greatest rate of gun violence along with that. Can you put the two together or are you that dense?
 
Kal'Stang said:
On its own, no, heroin doesn't do a thing. Unless a human being uses it. Fire can be started by nature, however if someone puts an accelerant for the purpose of burning down that home...guess what...it was caused by a human being. Nothing else.



A rattlesnake is a living thing. Comparing a rattlesnake and a gun is like comparing apples to bolts on a car. One is alive, the other is inanimate can can't do crap on its own.



Your examples didn't help ya in the slightest. Easily shown that your examples are worthless without a human component. Heroin? Requires humans to use. Atom bomb, requires humans to use. Cocaine & meth, requires humans to use. All of the examples that you gave are harmless until someone uses them improperly. Even an atom bomb is worthless until used. Not to mention NONE of your examples help in the slightest with personal self defense. So you may want to try again with different examples.



:lamo Not nearly as trashed as your claim that guns cause deaths. I've yet to see or hear of one single gun ever getting up and walking around shooting people all by its lonesome. Every single time I hear that its some stupid retard human using the gun illegally. Until such time as a gun actually gets up and walks around shooting people on its own your argument is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
Click to expand...

On its own, no, heroin doesn't do a thing
Click to expand...

Good, we have agreement. Your "inanimate object" argument is pretty lame isn't it, because such things as heroin and A bombs are illegal - for a reason - aren't they. And nowhere is it written into the second amendment that you have a constitutional right to own and carry an AR15, nor an M16, nor a Mac9, etc etc etc all guns that have been banned from public purchase.

The rest of your post is drivel.
 
domer76 said:
Here's the simple truth that you barrel-strokers wish to avoid. This country has the easiest access to guns and the most prevelance of guns in the western world. And we have the greatest rate of gun violence along with that. Can you put the two together or are you that dense?
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out to you already, remove the liberal epicenters of gangland violence like Chi-Town, and our "gun violence" rate is no worse than any other western nation. Furthermore, why should law abiding gun owner be penalized for people who commit suicide?
 
jet57 said:
Good, we have agreement. Your "inanimate object" argument is pretty lame isn't it, because such things as heroin and A bombs are illegal - for a reason - aren't they. And nowhere is it written into the second amendment that you have a constitutional right to own and carry an AR15, nor an M16, nor a Mac9, etc etc etc all guns that have been banned from public purchase.

The rest of your post is drivel.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 2A places no restrictions on firearms whatsoever.
 
countryboy said:
As has been pointed out to you already, remove the liberal epicenters of gangland violence like Chi-Town, and our "gun violence" rate is no worse than any other western nation. Furthermore, why should law abiding gun owner be penalized for people who commit suicide?
Click to expand...

You failed stats or never took the class. The "if you remove" BS doesn't cut it.
 
Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Connecticut, New York weapons ban
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...08abf6-34b7-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

The Supreme Court declined Monday to review bans on a lengthy list of firearms that New York and Connecticut have classified as “assault weapons “………

…. the justices without comment said they would not review lower-court decisions upholding the laws…….

……… The decision Monday was not a surprise, as the justices have previously declined to review other lower-court decisions that uphold bans passed by cities and states. Maryland, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New, Jersey as well as many cities and towns, have similar laws. None of the legal challenges to them have been successful in lower courts……….

Therefore states have the right to regulate guns……..and ban purchase/ownership of certai9n types of weapons
 
imyoda said:
Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Connecticut, New York weapons ban
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...08abf6-34b7-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

The Supreme Court declined Monday to review bans on a lengthy list of firearms that New York and Connecticut have classified as “assault weapons “………

…. the justices without comment said they would not review lower-court decisions upholding the laws…….

……… The decision Monday was not a surprise, as the justices have previously declined to review other lower-court decisions that uphold bans passed by cities and states. Maryland, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New, Jersey as well as many cities and towns, have similar laws. None of the legal challenges to them have been successful in lower courts……….

Therefore states have the right to regulate guns……..and ban purchase/ownership of certai9n types of weapons
Click to expand...

square that with McDonald

Bannerrhoid politicians hope to drive voters who oppose them out of the state. and that might happen. Many gun makers have left states like Md, Illinois, colorado and other states infested with Bannerrhoid attitudes and have settled in freer states. meaning we will, in the future, have very pro rights states and gun ban states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom