• 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!

Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

noonereal said:
wanting to defend yourself is normal and healthy. Carrying around a gun to so do is misguided and offer more danger than it does protection.

Just facts.
Click to expand...

Please provide citations for those "facts".
 
Rucker61 said:
Please provide citations for those "facts".
Click to expand...

its an opinion from a poster-his first comments on the gun thread-was to call guns "penis extensions" IIRC
 
Rucker61 said:
Do you think that AR-15s have a legitimate sport and hunting use, or do you feel that they are only useful for mass murders? If someone feels that they are only useful for mass murders, is it a stretch for them to believe that any who owns a gun whose only use is to kill lots of people in a short time is a danger to others?
Click to expand...

Of course I think AR-15s and similarly styled weapons have a sport and hunting use. And no its not a stretch to believe that there are people who think that anyone who owns an AR-15 or any gun is a danger to others. What is a stretch, however, is that judges and police would think that mere ownership makes a person worthy of being declared a danger.
 
apdst said:
Maybe. Maybe not. One thing's for sure: an unarmed person has zero chance of defending himself. I'll take me chances as an armed citizen, not a defensless victim.
Click to expand...

I understand, it's tough to subvert emotion to fact for humans.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's dishonest nonsense. When I was being mugged-that was a bad situation. Having a gun made it better for me-I stopped a violent attack by shooting one of the two muggers. And in all honesty, it made the situation better for the two muggers.
Click to expand...

So the muggers did not have guns.... LOL

Kinda shoots the argument that all the criminal can get guns, even when they are all outlawed.

OH, and I need a link to your shooting story.
 
apdst said:
Irrelevant. Because the press has killed millions throughout history. False reporting by the media caused the Rwanda genocide.
Click to expand...

This is not Rwanda. You also stated there were no laws. That was a lie.
 
noonereal said:
Google

easily found, don't be so lazy. If others do your work for you, you never learn. (Just like you teacher told you)
Click to expand...

It's your claim, you stop being lazy. I provide support for my clsims, I suggest you do the same.

Edit: your "facts" aren't facts. It's impossible to prove something that doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
noonereal said:
So the muggers did not have guns.... LOL

Kinda shoots the argument that all the criminal can get guns, even when they are all outlawed.

OH, and I need a link to your shooting story.
Click to expand...

Try to Google. How else will you learn?
 
MauiMan said:
The language of the constitution is very precise and consistent. In both the main body and the amendments (including the 2nd), “people” always refers to individuals.

The collective entities (groups) are the “states” and federal government which are also specifically referred to, so when the word state is used it means a state, not “the state” as we would use today which might also mean the federal government.

The word “right” in the constitution always refers to individuals. Governmental entities never have any “rights”, they have “powers”.

The founders were “natural scientists” and believed that “rights” derived from god or nature, and were possessed by individuals. States or governments were artificial entities and therefore could not possess rights, but could voluntarily (consent of the governed) be granted “powers” by the people to accomplish social or collective goals such as justice or defense or building a road. — Harold Piskiel
Click to expand...

Strict Constitutionalist, huh?

14th Amendment - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Citizens are entitled to be protected from others who may harm them.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Strict Constitutionalist, huh?

14th Amendment - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Citizens are entitled to be protected from others who may harm them.
Click to expand...

From what, exactly, and by whom? Castle Rock v Gonzales and other SCOTUS decisions affirm that the State has no responsibility to protect any one citizen.

Edit: are you claiming that this phrase gives the State the right to ignore other rights in that protection?
 
Vadinho said:
The 2nd amendment is about regulating a militia. It says nothing else really.
Click to expand...

Not really. For the English Majors amongst us, it turns out to be true that the sentence that is the Second Amendment consists of both dependent clauses and independent clauses. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state,..." is not a sentence. It is 2 dependent clauses and an incomplete philosophical statement regarding militias and free states.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the independent clause, and a stand alone sentence offering a complete thought and a restriction upon the government.

Diagraming sentences can be useful, if boring.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Red flag laws violate due process and are unconstitutional. If somebody is deemed a threat they should be seized and then put through due process. Seizing any guns they might own beforehand violates their rights.
Click to expand...

Tru dat. If someone is deemed a threat to themselves, taking their guns and leaving them alone in a house full of ropes and belts doesn't do anything. Half of all suicides are by non-gun means. This isn't a law to protect at-risk people from themselves. It's a law to confiscate guns.
 
Rucker61 said:
It's your claim, you stop being lazy. I provide support for my clsims, I suggest you do the same.

Edit: your "facts" aren't facts. It's impossible to prove something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Keep your head in the ground, what do I care.

Choose to view propaganda as fact, what do I care.

Trump needs you folks because not a reasoned person alive supports him.
 
Rucker61 said:
From what, exactly, and by whom? Castle Rock v Gonzales and other SCOTUS decisions affirm that the State has no responsibility to protect any one citizen.

Edit: are you claiming that this phrase gives the State the right to ignore other rights in that protection?
Click to expand...
Show me in Castle Rock v Gonzales where it says, or implies, the local pd had no responsibility to protect it's citizens. All I see is refusal to allow a lawsuit for failing to enforce a restraining order. It does not address the local pd’s responsibility to protect.

The state has a responsibility to provide for the safety of all its citizens. Including from each other.

Have you seen any of the “red flag” laws struck down? Why do you think they haven’t been?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Show me in Castle Rock v Gonzales where it says, or implies, the local pd had no responsibility to protect it's citizens. All I see is refusal to allow a lawsuit for failing to enforce a restraining order. It does not address the local pd’s responsibility to protect.

The state has a responsibility to provide for the safety of all its citizens. Including from each other.

Have you seen any of the “red flag” laws struck down? Why do you think they haven’t been?
Click to expand...

"Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband"

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

"No. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Gonzales had no constitutionally-protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due process. In order to have a "property interest" in a benefit as abstract as enforcement of a restraining order, the Court ruled, Gonzales would have needed a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to the benefit. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia found that state law did not entitle the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the police. Instead, restraining orders only provide grounds for arresting the subject of the order. The specific action to be taken is up to the discretion of the police. The Court stated that "This is not the sort of 'entitlement' out of which a property interest is created." The Court concluded that since "Colorado has not created such an entitlement," Gonzales had no property interest and the Due Process Clause was therefore inapplicable. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented."

{{meta.fullTitle}}

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
 
noonereal said:
Keep your head in the ground, what do I care.

Choose to view propaganda as fact, what do I care.
Click to expand...

C'mon, just one single link supporting this claim: "Carrying around a gun to so do is misguided and offer more danger than it does protection." BOnus points if the study separates risk of criminals carrying guns and law abiding citizens carrying guns. You lose points if you can only refer to the Philadelphia study.

Trump needs you folks because not a reasoned person alive supports him.
Click to expand...

I'm not nor have I ever been a Trump supporter. His nomination caused me to avoid voting for a President for the first time since 1980.
 
Rucker61 said:
"Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband"

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

"No. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Gonzales had no constitutionally-protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due process. In order to have a "property interest" in a benefit as abstract as enforcement of a restraining order, the Court ruled, Gonzales would have needed a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to the benefit. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia found that state law did not entitle the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the police. Instead, restraining orders only provide grounds for arresting the subject of the order. The specific action to be taken is up to the discretion of the police. The Court stated that "This is not the sort of 'entitlement' out of which a property interest is created." The Court concluded that since "Colorado has not created such an entitlement," Gonzales had no property interest and the Due Process Clause was therefore inapplicable. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented."

{{meta.fullTitle}}

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
Click to expand...
Again, nowhere in the courts decision did it state or imply that Gonzales was not entitled to the same usual protections enjoyed by all other citizens . Only that the pd was not required to intervene, in the case of the restraining order, until it was violated.

The order has absolutely nothing to do with the pd’s obligation to provide a safe environment for citizens.

You still haven’t addressed why “red flag” laws, which are being adopted by more and more states, haven’t been struck down.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Again, nowhere in the courts decision did it state or imply that Gonzales was not entitled to the same usual protections enjoyed by all other citizens . Only that the pd was not required to intervene, in the case of the restraining order, until it was violated.

The order has absolutely nothing to do with the pd’s obligation to provide a safe environment for citizens.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law doesn't mean that every citizen is totally protected. Only that every citizen is entitled to the protection as everyone else. Given that PD's have no responsibility to protect an individual citizen, Gonzales was offered equal protection.

You still haven’t addressed why “red flag” laws, which are being adopted by more and more states, haven’t been struck down.
Click to expand...

Because SCOTUS has just taken up their first 2A case in 9 years.

Back to my question which predates yours:

Given this statement: "14th Amendment - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Citizens are entitled to be protected from others who may harm them."

Are you claiming that this phrase gives the State the right to ignore other rights in that protection? IOW, what powers do you believe this statement gives the State.
 
Rucker61 said:
Equal protection under the law doesn't mean that every citizen is totally protected. Only that every citizen is entitled to the protection as everyone else. Given that PD's have no responsibility to protect an individual citizen, Gonzales was offered equal protection.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a given that pd’s have no responsibility to protect an individual citizen. Saying so is completely nonsensical and contradictory to every police department’s primary role.

Rucker61 said:
Given this statement: "14th Amendment - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Citizens are entitled to be protected from others who may harm them."

Are you claiming that this phrase gives the State the right to ignore other rights in that protection? IOW, what powers do you believe this statement gives the State.
Click to expand...
Interpretation isn’t necessary. It means just what it says. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. I’m entitled live my life free from harm by another. If someone reasonably presents a threat (as judged by courts), temporarily removing their access to firearms is the right thing to do. If you want to argue about “due process” rights, join a lawsuit. For now, red laws stand, and as long as they are implemented properly, this gun owner is happy about that.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No, it is not a given that pd’s have no responsibility to protect an individual citizen. Saying so is completely nonsensical and contradictory to every police department’s primary role.
Click to expand...

They have no Constitutional responsibility to protect every individual. They take on that role willingly, though. It's not always carried out at the officer level, however. See "Parkland".

Interpretation isn’t necessary. It means just what it says. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. I’m entitled live my life free from harm by another. If someone reasonably presents a threat (as judged by courts), temporarily removing their access to firearms is the right thing to do. If you want to argue about “due process” rights, join a lawsuit. For now, red laws stand, and as long as they are implemented properly, this gun owner is happy about that.
Click to expand...


"If someone reasonably presents a threat (as judged by courts" then that threat isn't limited to just guns. Anything that can be used as a weapon should be kept away from this threat, or it's not about him being a threat. It's just about getting more gun control laws on the books.

Given that many of the folks who want these laws in place consider the only use for semiautomatic weapons is to kill lots of people in a short period, and feel that anyone who owns one has to feel that way, I'm not willing to put my freedoms in the hands of virulently anti-gun people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom