• 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:
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...

Which gave TD a very significant advantage.
 
apdst said:
And I'm right. Ever read Hustler Magazine?
Click to expand...

I showed you laws that regulate the media. YOu simply act like there are none.
 
apdst said:
None of those laws apply to actual content and context.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Those laws dictate how things can be reported and what can be said in those articles/videos/audiotapes.

Censorship laws impact media and the press.

You claimed there was no regulation. You are wrong.
 
Rucker61 said:
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".
Click to expand...
Where do city/county police officers derive their authority from? Where do states derive their authorities from? What document is the basis for every law in America? Answer: the United States Constitution. With authority comes responsibility.

*Not sure what you mean, referring to the school resource officer (a sworn officer) at Parkland?

Rucker61 said:
"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.
Click to expand...
^^ Strictly personal opinion and hyperbole. We won’t agree, so I’ll pass on responding.
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. Those laws dictate how things can be reported and what can be said in those articles/videos/audiotapes.

Censorship laws impact media and the press.

You claimed there was no regulation. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Geez, dude. The law only prohibits cussing, on air.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Where do city/county police officers derive their authority from? Where do states derive their authorities from? What document is the basis for every law in America? Answer: the United States Constitution. With authority comes responsibility.
Click to expand...
The Constitution only grants powers to the federal government. There's a difference between authority to enforce a law and responsibility to enforce a law. Were the police officers in Castle Rock held accountable for failing to effectively enforce a legal restraining order? They had the authority to do so, to maintain 100% surveillance of Gonzales to arrest the perp when he violated the terms of the restraining order. They failed to do so. They were found to not be responsible for failing to exercise that authority.

*Not sure what you mean, referring to the school resource officer (a sworn officer) at Parkland?
Click to expand...
Yes.
'
^^ Strictly personal opinion and hyperbole. We won’t agree, so I’ll pass on responding.
Click to expand...

Do you accept that someone who is a danger to himself or others is still a danger without guns?

Can they State ignore any other rights if the person is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others under "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."

Or is the power of the State to protect its citizens limited to red flag laws which are limited to guns?
 
apdst said:
Geez, dude. The law only prohibits cussing, on air.
Click to expand...

Geez dude, the constituents in some states don't want people owning M60 machine guns.
 
Obscurity said:
Geez dude, the constituents in some states don't want people owning M60 machine guns.
Click to expand...

Constituents in some states didn't want gays to get married, or women to have abortions. Sometimes what the masses want doesn't matter when it comes to rights.
 
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...


I couldn't care less if you want me to do that-not going to happen.
 
Rucker61 said:
Constituents in some states didn't want gays to get married, or women to have abortions. Sometimes what the masses want doesn't matter when it comes to rights.
Click to expand...

Those folks ought to mind their business, since they are infringing on the rights of others.

No one can tell me what they have lost due to gay marriage or abortion.

Can you?
 
Rucker61 said:
The Constitution only grants powers to the federal government. There's a difference between authority to enforce a law and responsibility to enforce a law. Were the police officers in Castle Rock held accountable for failing to effectively enforce a legal restraining order? They had the authority to do so, to maintain 100% surveillance of Gonzales to arrest the perp when he violated the terms of the restraining order. They failed to do so. They were found to not be responsible for failing to exercise that authority.
Click to expand...
If authority for states to govern/police doesn’t come from the Constitution, where do they get their authority from?

You’re misunderstanding the decision, again. The pd wasn’t held liable because they were not required to do anything unless the order was violated. Ridiculous, but fact according to SCOTUS. As a separate matter, there was no comment regarding the pd’s responsibility to protect citizens.

Rucker61 said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Ok. What was your point?

Rucker61 said:
Do you accept that someone who is a danger to himself or others is still a danger without guns?

Can they State ignore any other rights if the person is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others under "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."

Or is the power of the State to protect its citizens limited to red flag laws which are limited to guns?
Click to expand...
Questions for the courts to work out.
 
Obscurity said:
Those folks ought to mind their business, since they are infringing on the rights of others.

No one can tell me what they have lost due to gay marriage or abortion.

Can you?
Click to expand...

I didn't say I supported those positions, and no, I can't tell you what they've lost. I do appreciate the point about people minding their own business infringing upon the rights of others.
 
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...

The president is a special case, and you know it. Quit trying to be a Supreme Court justice. The Congress and the Courts will work out Donald’s malfeasance, if any.
 
Obscurity said:
Those folks ought to mind their business, since they are infringing on the rights of others.

No one can tell me what they have lost due to gay marriage or abortion.

Can you?
Click to expand...

nothing-I support both though some make a good faith argument that abortion terminates a human life.

how does someone owning a gun or using it lawfully harm you? it doesn't.
 
TurtleDude said:
nothing-I support both though some make a good faith argument that abortion terminates a human life.

how does someone owning a gun or using it lawfully harm you? it doesn't.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Never said it does.
 
Obscurity said:
It doesn't. Never said it does.
Click to expand...

so you weren't trying to compare those who want to ban guns with those who want to ban abortion or gay rights
 
RaleBulgarian said:
If authority for states to govern/police doesn’t come from the Constitution, where do they get their authority from?
Click to expand...
State constitutions. City laws.

You’re misunderstanding the decision, again. The pd wasn’t held liable because they were not required to do anything unless the order was violated. Ridiculous, but fact according to SCOTUS. As a separate matter, there was no comment regarding the pd’s responsibility to protect citizens.
Click to expand...

Red flag laws are preemptive on the possibility that someone might commit a crime.

Let's get back to your 14th Amendment claim:

"The 7th Circuit Court's decision to uphold the District Court's dismissal in summary judgment was affirmed. A state or county agency does not have an obligation under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to prevent child abuse when the child is 1) in parental, not agency custody, and 2) the state did not create the danger of abuse or increase the child's vulnerability to abuse. Failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine

Ok. What was your point?
Click to expand...
That the police cannot be held liable to failure to protect anyone.

What's your opinion? You seem to feel that guns can be confiscated if the person has been deemed a danger to himself others. Given that other means of harm to self or others exist, should they also be covered in a red flag law?

Questions for the courts to work out.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
so you weren't trying to compare those who want to ban guns with those who want to ban abortion or gay rights
Click to expand...

There is no good faith argument against abortion or gay marriage, you already know this. Those folks are entitled to their privacy and their pursuit of happiness and bodily autonomy, just like gun owners.

I still believe the state has every authority to regulate these matters, but not restrict access.
 
MauiMan said:
The president is a special case, and you know it. Quit trying to be a Supreme Court justice. The Congress and the Courts will work out Donald’s malfeasance, if any.
Click to expand...
^^ What’s up with this rant?

Totally unrelated to what was being discussed.
 
Obscurity said:
There is no good faith argument against abortion or gay marriage, you already know this. Those folks are entitled to their privacy and their pursuit of happiness and bodily autonomy, just like gun owners.

I still believe the state has every authority to regulate these matters, but not restrict access.
Click to expand...

I disagree-I believe there are good faith arguments against abortion. I know people who truly believe in God and truly believe that abortion kills innocent human life. I cannot think of a good faith argument against Gay marriage or treating gays equally with others in areas such as government employment
 
TurtleDude said:
I disagree-I believe there are good faith arguments against abortion. I know people who truly believe in God and truly believe that abortion kills innocent human life. I cannot think of a good faith argument against Gay marriage or treating gays equally with others in areas such as government employment
Click to expand...

54% of abortions are obtained by self admitted christians. you can insist they aren't christian, but that's irrelevant. I can think of dozens of arguments against the pro birth position, let alone the fact theocrats are trying to legislate faith into law.

Belief in god is not argument against abortion rights. Its a personal delusion best kept to yourself.
 
Obscurity said:
54% of abortions are obtained by self admitted christians. you can insist they aren't christian, but that's irrelevant. I can think of dozens of arguments against the pro birth position, let alone the fact theocrats are trying to legislate faith into law.

Belief in god is not argument against abortion rights. Its a personal delusion best kept to yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are accurately understanding many anti abortion believers. I do-I was a guard at a planned parenthood facility. I interacted with protestors for two summers on a weekly basis. I saw everything from hateful misogynists to little old Catholic ladies who I am convinced truly believed that abortion was murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom