• 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!

Compromise? Why would I compromise?

Sampson Simpson said:
It really doesn't, the Supreme Court has ownership of the 2nd amendment and what it means (just like the rest of the constitution). Fed government can make any laws they want. And people can challenge them, and courts rule on constitutionality. Making a slippery slope argument is not a rational, fact based position. You didn't answer my question, you went on a slippery slope tangent. It is just deflecting. None of that addresses the issue that how are your right to bear arms infringed if particular types of weapons are banned (in fact, there are many that are), when you can bear many other types of weapons


And sorry, your questions are dumb and completely irrelevant. You are playing semantics of definitions, and completely unoriginal, its one of the standard deflections. An assault rifle is an AR-15, automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, extremely lethal ammunitions, basically military grade weapons. The law can define it if they in fact made a law banning it. It's irrelevant to my argument, and that argument was to counter the dumb idea that banning a particular type of weapon means your right to buy other types of weapons is infringed. Your questions are just deflections

The majority of mass shootings is performed by people having high caliber weapons able to kill a lot more people in shorter time. All the other gun deaths in this country would not be effected. Those don't tend to be random acts of violence, they are domestic issues, gang issues, people who know the victims, etc.
Click to expand...

this sort of ignorant bovine excrement is why I have so little use for gun banning arguments. The authors either lie intentionally or are incredibly ignorant of the issues surrounding this debate
 
Sampson Simpson said:
It really doesn't, the Supreme Court has ownership of the 2nd amendment and what it means (just like the rest of the constitution). Fed government can make any laws they want. And people can challenge them, and courts rule on constitutionality. Making a slippery slope argument is not a rational, fact based position. You didn't answer my question, you went on a slippery slope tangent. It is just deflecting. None of that addresses the issue that how are your right to bear arms infringed if particular types of weapons are banned (in fact, there are many that are), when you can bear many other types of weapons


And sorry, your questions are dumb and completely irrelevant. You are playing semantics of definitions, and completely unoriginal, its one of the standard deflections. An assault rifle is an AR-15, automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, extremely lethal ammunitions, basically military grade weapons. The law can define it if they in fact made a law banning it. It's irrelevant to my argument, and that argument was to counter the dumb idea that banning a particular type of weapon means your right to buy other types of weapons is infringed. Your questions are just deflections

The majority of mass shootings is performed by people having high caliber weapons able to kill a lot more people in shorter time. All the other gun deaths in this country would not be effected. Those don't tend to be random acts of violence, they are domestic issues, gang issues, people who know the victims, etc.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right
 
Rucker61 said:
You mean two centuries of the collective view of the 2nd?
Click to expand...

That's the first time I've seen a SC ruling described as a "collective view."

Let me make an analogy, after they ripped the guts out of the VRA, saying it wasn't needed, it took less than 24 hours for a bill to be passed that proved it was needed. They were lying.

In this case, their decision overturned centuries of precedent in favor of a goofy interpretation of history.
 
late said:
That's the first time I've seen a SC ruling described as a "collective view."

Let me make an analogy, after they ripped the guts out of the VRA, saying it wasn't needed, it took less than 24 hours for a bill to be passed that proved it was needed. They were lying.

In this case, their decision overturned centuries of precedent in favor of a goofy interpretation of history.
Click to expand...

"Collective view" - the RKBA is not an individual right.
"Standard view" - the RKBA is an individual right.

Are you saying that for two centuries prior to Heller that Congress and the Courts understood that the RKBA was solely an collective rather than individual right?
 
late said:
That's the first time I've seen a SC ruling described as a "collective view."

Let me make an analogy, after they ripped the guts out of the VRA, saying it wasn't needed, it took less than 24 hours for a bill to be passed that proved it was needed. They were lying.

In this case, their decision overturned centuries of precedent in favor of a goofy interpretation of history.
Click to expand...
until FDR came around, no one even hinted that the second amendment was not an individual right. In the 1830s, IIRC a Georgia (state) statute was thrown out due to citation to the second amendment . The collective nonsense wasn't even adopted by FDR's pet monkeys on the USSC in 1939
 
The Libertarian Party is a great example of what happens when you can't compromise. 48 years on and it has never elected a congressman or senator or governor or mayor of any city of size, and it is never gotten any presidential vote that could be in any way seen as competitive.
 
beefheart said:
The Libertarian Party is a great example of what happens when you can't compromise. 48 years on and it has never elected a congressman or senator or governor or mayor of any city of size, and it is never gotten any presidential vote that could be in any way seen as competitive.
Click to expand...

sort of an out of the blue bit of nonsense concerning the gun issue
 
beefheart said:
The Libertarian Party is a great example of what happens when you can't compromise. 48 years on and it has never elected a congressman or senator or governor or mayor of any city of size, and it is never gotten any presidential vote that could be in any way seen as competitive.
Click to expand...

They are the unicorns of politics
 
beefheart said:
The Libertarian Party is a great example of what happens when you can't compromise. 48 years on and it has never elected a congressman or senator or governor or mayor of any city of size, and it is never gotten any presidential vote that could be in any way seen as competitive.
Click to expand...

You would need to intersect with reality to accomplish something.
 
Cardinal said:
Alright, well, since the discussion isn't about slavery, I don't need to address your stupid post. I've recently adopted the position that the 2A needs to be repealed. This is because gun rights activists made it brutally clear that they will not cede one inch. Before I realized that I had never even considered being against the 2A. Now I am. Opposition to the 2A has, in fact, entered the mainstream dialogue. If the 2A is ultimately repealed down the line, you will have your own intransigence to blame.
Click to expand...

Gun rights advocates ceded a couple inches in the '30's with the NFA. Lost full auto's, surpressors, a few other things. Not enough. Then the banning in the '60's assault weapons ban of most skeery looking weapons. Still not enough. More and more nibbles at the second since, including military grade weapons, whatever that is. Still still not enough. Most recently, the call became AR 15 type weapons, which immediately became semi auto's. At least 85% of the weapons now in use.

It's not the second advocates. It's the banners. They will not rest until all firearms are banned. Then it's on to knives.
 
jimbo said:
Gun rights advocates ceded a couple inches in the '30's with the NFA. Lost full auto's, surpressors, a few other things. Not enough. Then the banning in the '60's assault weapons ban of most skeery looking weapons. Still not enough. More and more nibbles at the second since, including military grade weapons, whatever that is. Still still not enough. Most recently, the call became AR 15 type weapons, which immediately became semi auto's. At least 85% of the weapons now in use.

It's not the second advocates. It's the banners. They will not rest until all firearms are banned. Then it's on to knives.
Click to expand...

We have the most lax gun laws currently of any developed nation.....and the most gun deaths
 
vegas giants said:
We have the most lax gun laws currently of any developed nation.....and the most gun deaths
Click to expand...

That addresses nothing in my post or the one that I responded to.
 
jimbo said:
That addresses nothing in my post or the one that I responded to.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. You make it sound like there has been a ton of compromise already when in fact we are far behind any other developed country in establishing effective gun control. Still not enough.....because it is not enough
 
vegas giants said:
Actually it does. You make it sound like there has been a ton of compromise already when in fact we are far behind any other developed country in establishing effective gun control. Still not enough.....because it is not enough
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't. I never mentioned other countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom