• 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!

Should Sante Fe shooters father be punished?

TurtleDude said:
given posters such as you constantly scream for punitive laws against gun ownership, don't you understand that reasonable people may reject any proposal coming from those who want to ban AR 15s, 11 round magazines and so forth?
Click to expand...

Given posters such as you constantly isolate four words of the 2nd Amendment, to the exclusion of the rest of it, don't you understand that reasonable people may reject the lack of any proposal coming from those who refuse to address problems with gun ownership in our country?
 
RickJames3000 said:
Given posters such as you constantly isolate four words of the 2nd Amendment, to the exclusion of the rest of it, don't you understand that reasonable people may reject the lack of any proposal coming from those who refuse to address problems with gun ownership in our country?
Click to expand...

Given that posters like you who seem to think that the inclusion of the "well-regulated militia" phrase in the Second Amendment gives the federal government any power over the arms of the individual tells us that "reasonable people" don't understand the Constitution. Please tell us how with the absolute power over the arms of the militia granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8, which gives the federal government carte blanche to regulate or restrict the arms of the militia to exclude all firearms if desired, that the Second can protect the arms of the militia from infringement by the federal government.
 
JC Callender said:
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?
Click to expand...

Why just him? Does the mother not own them too? Certainly the parents should be held responsible in some way for their kids actions. Prison is probably not appropriate, but I dont know what would be. Community service maybe.
 
Rucker61 said:
Given that posters like you who seem to think that the inclusion of the "well-regulated militia" phrase in the Second Amendment gives the federal government any power over the arms of the individual tells us that "reasonable people" don't understand the Constitution. Please tell us how with the absolute power over the arms of the militia granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8, which gives the federal government carte blanche to regulate or restrict the arms of the militia to exclude all firearms if desired, that the Second can protect the arms of the militia from infringement by the federal government.
Click to expand...

If you paid any attention to the post that I responded to, you would notice that I simply reversed his thinly-veiled ad hominem attack.
Posters that make assumptions about others' positions, instead of reasonably asking for clarification about said positions, invariably fail.

Obviously these issues are for our federal and state judiciaries to iron out....

But I am not at either extreme of this issue, and prefer not to waste too much of my valuable time arguing back-and-forth with extremists who are only here to push their agenda, rather than to understand how others think about an issue.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Given posters such as you constantly isolate four words of the 2nd Amendment, to the exclusion of the rest of it, don't you understand that reasonable people may reject the lack of any proposal coming from those who refuse to address problems with gun ownership in our country?
Click to expand...

there is no objective argument against the obvious-the second amendment was intended and written to deny the federal government any power to regulate the ownership or use of firearms by private citizens.
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no objective argument against the obvious-the second amendment was intended and written to deny the federal government any power to regulate the ownership or use of firearms by private citizens.
Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you on a number of occasions.
You are entitled to continue to live in your alternative reality.
 
RickJames3000 said:
The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you on a number of occasions.
You are entitled to continue to live in your alternative reality.
Click to expand...

When? Not in Cruikshank, Miller, Heller, McDonald or Caetano. Are there SCOTUS cases other than these, which do support TD's position?
 
Rucker61 said:
When? Not in Cruikshank, Miller, Heller, McDonald or Caetano. Are there SCOTUS cases other than these, which do support TD's position?
Click to expand...

LMAO

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions … possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

-District of Columbia v. Heller
 
RickJames3000 said:
LMAO

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions … possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

-District of Columbia v. Heller
Click to expand...

Nothing there says anything about the intent of the Framers when they wrote the Second Amendment.
 
RickJames3000 said:
The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you on a number of occasions.
You are entitled to continue to live in your alternative reality.
Click to expand...

do you think the supreme court was honestly following the language of the commerce clause when the FDR fluffing court held that the commerce clause was properly interpreted to allow congress to tell a private citizen that he could not grow wheat on his own land for his own use?
 
Rucker61 said:
Nothing there says anything about the intent of the Framers when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I don't think the hard core gun haters actually believe that the federal government was intended to have such power. But like most lefties-the end justifies the means so honesty will the a back seat to expediency
 
TurtleDude said:
do you think the supreme court was honestly following the language of the commerce clause when the FDR fluffing court held that the commerce clause was properly interpreted to allow congress to tell a private citizen that he could not grow wheat on his own land for his own use?
Click to expand...

We're talking about gun control here, wherein I have no doubt the Supreme Court followed the language of the 2nd Amendment in allowing the feds to regulate firearms.
Stay on topic.
 
TaterTots said:
I don't know the full story, but did the father leave his firearms unsecured? Were they secure, but he told his child how to access them regardless? Or did the shooter break into a locker/safe to obtain them? That's important information. If he was careless with his firearms he should be accountable. Owning a firearm is a big responsibility to take on. People need to learn not to be careless.
Click to expand...

The countering argument to that is that in many instances, the family firearm...in homes where parents have taught their kids about firearm safety and their use...have been used to defend children in their homes from armed predators.
 
RickJames3000 said:
We're talking about gun control here, wherein I have no doubt the Supreme Court followed the language of the 2nd Amendment in allowing the feds to regulate firearms.
Stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Lets examine that claim-what language in the constitution or the bill of rights delegated that power to the federal government?
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets examine that claim-what language in the constitution or the bill of rights delegated that power to the federal government?
Click to expand...

I'm going to head you off here, so you don't waste any more of our time...

I'm simply not interested in your remedial arguments regarding the 2nd Amendment, specifically your hyper focus on the term "shall not be infringed" to the exclusion of the rest of the words contained therein... which I believe (*and our courts have consistently agreed on this point) do not exclude the federal and/or state governments from implementing gun control.

Yours is a tired argument made by people who have little understanding of nuance or complexity.
 
Last edited:
RickJames3000 said:
We're talking about gun control here, wherein I have no doubt the Supreme Court followed the language of the 2nd Amendment in allowing the feds to regulate firearms.
Stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Are there any limitations on federal regulation?
 
Rucker61 said:
Are there any limitations on federal regulation?
Click to expand...

Yes there are.

And this is the ground upon which debates of substance can be found.
But certainly not with the amount of assumptions you people bring to the table whenever someone wants to have a discussion about gun control.

Extremists on this issue (on both sides) can not be reckoned with.
 
RickJames3000 said:
I'm going to head you off here, so you don't waste any more of our time...

I'm simply not interested in your remedial arguments regarding the 2nd Amendment, specifically your hyper focus on the term "shall not be infringed" to the exclusion of the rest of the words contained therein... which I believe (*and our courts have consistently agreed on this point) do not exclude the federal and/or state governments from implementing gun control.

Yours is a tired argument made by people who have little understanding of nuance or complexity.
Click to expand...

so you are claiming that somehow the words well regulated conjures up some dormant power that was never mentioned in article one, section 8. I love watching the dishonesty of gun banners who pretend they actually "understand" the second amendment so well that they can make claims that are clearly idiotic based on the obvious words of the founders
 
RickJames3000 said:
Yes there are.

And this is the ground upon which debates of substance can be found.
But certainly not with the amount of assumptions you people bring to the table whenever someone wants to have a discussion about gun control.

Extremists on this issue (on both sides) can not be reckoned with.
Click to expand...

What are those limits on federal power to restrict/regulate firearms?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are claiming that somehow the words well regulated conjures up some dormant power that was never mentioned in article one, section 8. I love watching the dishonesty of gun banners who pretend they actually "understand" the second amendment so well that they can make claims that are clearly idiotic based on the obvious words of the founders
Click to expand...

I love watching gun-strokers pretending they know who they are talking to, or what those people believe. What's truly idiotic is to presume that everyone in support of gun control is a "gun banner".

Foolish rhetoric, the likes of which you are engaging in here and throughout DP on this subject, is pushing more people to support increased gun control measures.
You simply don't have the ability to get out of your own way. lol

Guns | Gallup Historical Trends

More Americans Than Ever Support Stricter Gun Laws: Poll | Time
 
Rucker61 said:
What are those limits on federal power to restrict/regulate firearms?
Click to expand...

That is for the Supreme Court to decide... if you want to examine precedent, you can consult Google.
I'm not here to hold your hand through this.

Do your own research.
 
RickJames3000 said:
I love watching gun-strokers pretending they know who they are talking to, or what those people believe. What's truly idiotic is to presume that everyone in support of gun control is a "gun banner".

Foolish rhetoric, the likes of which you are engaging in here and throughout DP on this subject, is pushing more people to support increased gun control measures.
You simply don't have the ability to get out of your own way. lol

Guns | Gallup Historical Trends

More Americans Than Ever Support Stricter Gun Laws: Poll | Time
Click to expand...

lots of people are stupid. Lots of people are sheep who will support nebulous demands for more safety

the fact is-most of the leaders and active advocates for gun control are dishonest as to their motivations. Its obvious to me most of you who want more controls do so out of a desire to harass gun owners.

and most of your proposals are idiotic

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-problem-with-common-sense-gun-laws/
 
Lovebug said:
How much do we know about their story? Does that kid have a history of violence or mental instability? Did father and son have a good relationship? I am trying to apply this to people I know, fathers who own guns and their sons. Off hand, I would say that none of the sons display any tendencies that make me think the fathers should lock up the guns. The ones I know go hunting with their sons, they clean and store weapons... No young kids live in the household or visit.
So where does that leave us? Fathers distrusting their sons and locking up weapons just in case? How about taking away car keys? I mean, one can use a car and ram it into people. No?
OTOH, what if there were obvious signs...and there usually are? If we can say for sure that the father knew the son to be unstable, then may be.
Click to expand...
I've been doing the same thought process. Growing up I had several friends whose family owned guns. Most stored them in locked gun cabinets but older kids, 15+ yo, had access to key/combination. As far as I can remember the families taught gun safety and respect from an early age.

The exact circumstances in this case are still coming out, but, barring any overwhelming reason I think the father should not be prosecuted.
 
RickJames3000 said:
That is for the Supreme Court to decide... if you want to examine precedent, you can consult Google.
I'm not here to hold your hand through this.

Do your own research.
Click to expand...

I know what SCOTUS has said in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, I just want to know your opinion.

"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)" Caetano v Massachusetts.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon", implying that firearms having "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" are protected the Second Amendment.

Given this, what is the federal government and the states empowered to restrict?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom