• 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!

The fraud of "warmest condolences" while doing nothing

haymarket said:
Not at all. Polls I have seen say that even a majority of the NRA members favor things like background checks. Its the leadership and a minority of fanatic zealots bought off with gun industry money who shape the organization and keep it the way it is.
Click to expand...

Haymarket, what further laws do you think we need?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... they are both part of the BoR and were passed by the same folks at the same time. I made myself perfectly clear as to why I related them as technology concerning both has improved over time.
Click to expand...

And one has nothing to do with the other.
 
MaggieD said:
Haymarket, what further laws do you think we need?
Click to expand...

Universal background checks on all firearms acquisitions.

Mandatory registration of all firearms.

Limits on firepower including both gun and ammunition.

No automatic weapons.

Banning certain semi-automatic weapons.

Outlaw sale of all kits which can turn a weapon into an automatic or simulate that power and ability.

Limits on magazine size.

You can do all that and still have the right to keep and bear arms to exercise.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so - in this case we are discussing one because of the other.
Click to expand...

I respect you. But in this case you are shamelessly engaging in repeated one of the most dishonest tactics the right wing engages in when this topic is discussed - pretending that language and protections of one Amendment can be applied to a different Amendment. And you do that because the Second does NOT say what you wished it would say.

This is intellectual fraud of the worst sort and the right wing does this all the time and far too many fall for it.
 
haymarket said:
Universal background checks on all firearms acquisitions.

Mandatory registration of all firearms.

Limits on firepower including both gun and ammunition.

No automatic weapons.

Banning certain semi-automatic weapons.

Limits on magazine size.

You can do all that and still have the right to keep and bear arms to exercise.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

Why aren’t these state matters, do you think? Many states already have background checks. Chicago all by its lonesome has magazine limits...no lasers either. I’m not sure what limits on fire power entails, so can't comment.

Why do you suppose our heavily Dem states haven’t enacted laws of their own to lead the way for the country? That would seem a logical thing to do.

And why do you suppose, when Dems have had a majority in both chambers (and a Dem president) that they haven’t enacted stricter laws themselves?
 
haymarket said:
This is beyond superb. It hits the nail firmly on the head expressing the beliefs of millions upon millions upon millions of Americans following the Vegas slaughter enabled by the far right wing NRA and its apologists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBQcpRE4JS8

And it features a hated enemy of the right wing as a bonus making it twice as satisfying. But he is right.

And it is getting lots of national coverage and finding an audience of receptive and sympathetic Americans who have had enough of the tail wagging the dog.

Keith Olbermann: The NRA is 'a terrorist organization' | TheHill

Keith Olbermann: NRA should be branded 'a terrorist organization'
Click to expand...

What do you think the odds of this dip**** having personal private security guards are? Body guards. Whatever.
 
haymarket said:
I respect you. But in this case you are shamelessly engaging in repeated one of the most dishonest tactics the right wing engages in when this topic is discussed - pretending that language and protections of one Amendment can be applied to a different Amendment. And you do that because the Second does NOT say what you wished it would say.

This is intellectual fraud of the worst sort and the right wing does this all the time and far too many fall for it.
Click to expand...

Nope, the dishonesty is with those who assert the the meaning of "the people" used in the 2A is completely different than "the people" used in the 4A. The clear intention of the BoR was to limit federal government power and to assert otherwise is nonsense. We also have that pesky incorporation (added by the 14A?) which does even more constitutional shape shifting than the right ever dreamed of.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This moron should stop and think very carefully about his assertion that only technology of the time is afforded constitutional protection. Perhaps he should be told by the friends of the NRA in government to cease and desist using video, and anything else beyond what was available in 1789, since it is so clearly not protected by the 1A.
Click to expand...

When prohibition mobsters were using fully automatic machine guns both parties came together and banned machine guns. Now machine gun deaths that used to be pervasive are almost non-existent.

There is a valid point that the founders were only talking about the weapons of the time. They could not have conceived of the weapons of the future. There were no grenade launcher attachments to rifles back then. Are you saying the second amendment protects your right to buy a grenade launcher attachment? A flame thrower? A bazooka? Grenades?

Unless you believe the second amendment guarantees our right to own grenades and land mines, your argument fails completely. Please explain.
 
MaggieD said:
Thank you!

Why aren’t these state matters, do you think? Many states already have background checks. Chicago all by its lonesome has magazine limits...no lasers either. I’m not sure what limits on fire power entails, so can't comment.

Why do you suppose our heavily Dem states haven’t enacted laws of their own to lead the way for the country? That would seem a logical thing to do.

And why do you suppose, when Dems have had a majority in both chambers (and a Dem president) that they haven’t enacted stricter laws themselves?
Click to expand...

I suspect it was political cowardice and intimidation by the NRA crowd.
 
blackjack50 said:
What do you think the odds of this dip**** having personal private security guards are? Body guards. Whatever.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Do you know the answer to your question? And what is its relevance to the discussion?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, the dishonesty is with those who assert the the meaning of "the people" used in the 2A is completely different than "the people" used in the 4A. The clear intention of the BoR was to limit federal government power and to assert otherwise is nonsense. We also have that pesky incorporation (added by the 14A?) which does even more constitutional shape shifting than the right ever dreamed of.
Click to expand...

Each amendment is different and has different language and covers a different subject in a different way. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and a commission of intellectual fraud of the worst sort. People who do this with the Second do it because the Amendment does NOT say what they wished it would say so they try to dishonestly piggyback on other Amendments that are separate and apart from it.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
When prohibition mobsters were using fully automatic machine guns both parties came together and banned machine guns. Now machine gun deaths that used to be pervasive are almost non-existent.

There is a valid point that the founders were only talking about the weapons of the time. They could not have conceived of the weapons of the future. There were no grenade launcher attachments to rifles back then. Are you saying the second amendment protects your right to buy a grenade launcher attachment? A flame thrower? A bazooka? Grenades?

Unless you believe the second amendment guarantees our right to own grenades and land mines, your argument fails completely. Please explain.
Click to expand...

Banning (with some exceptions, of course, since we are dealing with congress critters, after all) machine guns addressed the issue of rate of fire, to the greatest extent, as it did not limit magazine capacity, ammo type or any other ballistic trait. The rule was that only one round may be fired per trigger activation. The current definition of arms protected by the 2A is adequate and excludes the more exotic ordinance that you mentioned.

As most changes in technology are incremental, it is indeed worth looking at which changes in the capability of guns change their basic nature - the step to semi-auto, which you seem to find a step too far, was taken quite some time ago. To assert that now is the time to examine that, and thus attempt to get gobs of toothpaste back into the tube, is ridiculous because the very folks that banned machine guns decided that was far enough and left semi-auto alone as they knew adding it, even at that time in history, would never have passed constitutional muster.
 
haymarket said:
I suspect it was political cowardice and intimidation by the NRA crowd.
Click to expand...

Then do you ever criticize the Dems for that? And do you lay the blame for LV at their feet as well?
 
MaggieD said:
Then do you ever criticize the Dems for that? And do you lay the blame for LV at their feet as well?
Click to expand...

I just said it was political cowardice. Is that not critical?

One of the greatest wastes of a political mandate was the first two years of the Obama administration when they basically did nothing except a mediocre and watered down health care bill based on conservative think tank ideas floated years before. I have always taken that position.
 
haymarket said:
Each amendment is different and has different language and covers a different subject in a different way. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and a commission of intellectual fraud of the worst sort. People who do this with the Second do it because the Amendment does NOT say what they wished it would say so they try to dishonestly piggyback on other Amendments that are separate and apart from it.
Click to expand...

I will (must?) leave interpretation of the 2A to the courts as you should as well. It is pointless to expect that either of us will allow the other to be declared the winner of such a debate.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea. Do you know the answer to your question? And what is its relevance to the discussion?
Click to expand...

Not capable of taking an educated guess huh? That's ok. I will give you a hint though. It isn't No. But he is a big person. So having security is important because he is more important than you.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The current definition of arms protected by the 2A is adequate and excludes the more exotic ordinance that you mentioned.
Click to expand...

In other words, you agree that the second amendment doesn't cover certain guns that the framers of the constitution never envisioned? That renders the second amendment invalid for guns that are deadlier than those that the framers were aware of.

I like guns too. Whenever I'm on vacation in a place with shooting ranges I'll go have fun shooting guns. I subscribe to DemolitionRanch on YouTube. It's a guy shooting all kinds of exotic guns.

I wouldn't buy a gun (and can't in NY even if I wanted to) because a gun is just far more likely to kill you or someone you love than a burglar. As a kid, my little brother almost shot us with my grandfather's gun. Also, I can't think of a few incidents with jerks where had I had a gun, I would have drawn it.

Moreover, politically I think guns are a losing issue. I think there are many people who would vote Democrat if guns weren't an issue. It's the equivalent of the abortion issue--single issue voters.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I will (must?) leave interpretation of the 2A to the courts as you should as well. It is pointless to expect that either of us will allow the other to be declared the winner of such a debate.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
blackjack50 said:
Not capable of taking an educated guess huh? That's ok. I will give you a hint though. It isn't No. But he is a big person. So having security is important because he is more important than you.
Click to expand...

Tell you what - you write my answer and then refute it.
 
blackjack50 said:
You don't answer questions. How can I?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When somebody tells you that they do not have the information to accurately answer a question - what about that honest answer so befuddles and confuses you that all you can do is keep repeating the same thing over and over?
 
haymarket said:
Actually, KO never said that. He specifically singled out people and organizations which enable murder and terrorism. Disagreeing with him was NOT the criteria and never has been.
Click to expand...



Right cower away, cower away.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
typical liberal scumbag, shows the mindset of the alt-left. if you disagree with them you should be labeled a terrorist. What if he got his way and they would be labeled a terrorist, what then? swat raids? use guns to compel them to submit?
Click to expand...

There is no "alt-left" it's a strawman in the warped minds of the despicable right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom