• 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

apdst said:
No. I meant "infringe"...as in the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, along with the other amendments I listed. Maybe even the 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, too; depending on how the illegal confiscations are carried out.
Click to expand...

You’re right terms has been infringed already, back when they infringed on your right to own your own personal nuclear arms.
 
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...

When you want to restrict guns in a manner you are describing, it's like saying other people's lives are more important than the gun owners' lives.

What is the justification there?
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a very good understanding of anti abortion pro birth folks. And those little catholic ladies ought to consider leaving that edifice of greed, rape, and molestation. It is, after all, the primary reason an anti abortion movement exists.

I suspect they have this view since they want as many children in their talons as possible. Must be for the loving administrations of their priests, no doubt.
 
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...

Unfortunately you and I have clearly seen that many people disagree with your comment on abortion.

And I've been in many a discussion here before gay marriage was federally recognized and many people didnt agree there that there was no 'good faith argument' against it.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
^^ What’s up with this rant?

Totally unrelated to what was being discussed.
Click to expand...

I was,responding to this nonsense:

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...
 
Lursa said:
When you want to restrict guns in a manner you are describing, it's like saying other people's lives are more important than the gun owners' lives.

What is the justification there?
Click to expand...

Ok, let me get something straight here. I don't want to restrict guns. I am not sure what I "am describing". I simply said I support the federalist position. If a state doesn't want people owning military grade full auto squad support light machine guns, than that's fair, in my opinion.

I left NJ because of the authoritarian control exerted by the state over gun ownership.
 
Obscurity said:
Ok, let me get something straight here. I don't want to restrict guns. I am not sure what I "am describing". I simply said I support the federalist position. If a state doesn't want people owning military grade full auto squad support light machine guns, than that's fair, in my opinion.

I left NJ because of the authoritarian control exerted by the state over gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line at what is fair for a state to ban ownership of?
 
Lursa said:
Unfortunately you and I have clearly seen that many people disagree with your comment on abortion.

And I've been in many a discussion here before gay marriage was federally recognized and many people didnt agree there that there was no 'good faith argument' against it.
Click to expand...

Do you think I care if ne'er do well busy bodies disagree with me wanting folks -out- of people's private medical decisions?

There is no good faith argument against gay marriage. None. Except a bunch of whining about how gay folks cohabitating with a government document somehow diluted the value of their own marriage. IF that's the case, perhaps they ought not be married.
 
Obscurity said:
I have a very good understanding of anti abortion pro birth folks. And those little catholic ladies ought to consider leaving that edifice of greed, rape, and molestation. It is, after all, the primary reason an anti abortion movement exists.

I suspect they have this view since they want as many children in their talons as possible. Must be for the loving administrations of their priests, no doubt.
Click to expand...

I think you are going to deny that anyone-no matter what-can have an honest dislike of abortion. So its worthless pursuing this discussion any further. I support abortion being legal, safe, and as rare as possible. I support education to help ignorant people avoid pregnancies. But I also understand there are good faith arguments against abortion being legal.
 
Rucker61 said:
Where do you draw the line at what is fair for a state to ban ownership of?
Click to expand...

Depends on the state, but I personally believe the line is drawn on fully automatic rifles or submachine guns, explosives, military apcs or fighting vehicles, any rocket propelled or missle launcher/mortar type weapons.

Yes, I know, semi-auto can be fired very quickly; that's not the point. The point is, disarming the population with cops marching around with semi auto AR-15's is exceedingly uncomfortable, when the population is not armed with something of substance.

I do not think the public should have access to some military grade weapons of war because the public at large is a pretty poor shepherd of its rights in general, since we continue to vote for people that take rights away.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think you are going to deny that anyone-no matter what-can have an honest dislike of abortion. So its worthless pursuing this discussion any further. I support abortion being legal, safe, and as rare as possible. I support education to help ignorant people avoid pregnancies. But I also understand there are good faith arguments against abortion being legal.
Click to expand...

I think there are good faith arguments against it being morally acceptable. I do not accept their arguments against legality. I have kids of my own. I wouldn't ever advocate my wife to get an abortion. I think on the whole, we agree. I want as few as possible - as safe as possible, with access for all.

And you are correct; education and contraceptives are key. However, we have an arsonist, theocrat party in office that wants to remove sex ed and deny anyone condoms.
 
Obscurity said:
Depends on the state, but I personally believe the line is drawn on fully automatic rifles or submachine guns, explosives, military apcs or fighting vehicles, any rocket propelled or missle launcher/mortar type weapons.

Yes, I know, semi-auto can be fired very quickly; that's not the point. The point is, disarming the population with cops marching around with semi auto AR-15's is exceedingly uncomfortable, when the population is not armed with something of substance.

I do not think the public should have access to some military grade weapons of war because the public at large is a pretty poor shepherd of its rights in general, since we continue to vote for people that take rights away.
Click to expand...

The police have fully automatic weapons. Why shouldn't the populace be equally armed?

What's a military grade weapon of war? A sniper rifle? An service issue handgun?
 
Obscurity said:
I think there are good faith arguments against it being morally acceptable. I do not accept their arguments against legality. I have kids of my own. I wouldn't ever advocate my wife to get an abortion. I think on the whole, we agree. I want as few as possible - as safe as possible, with access for all.

And you are correct; education and contraceptives are key. However, we have an arsonist, theocrat party in office that wants to remove sex ed and deny anyone condoms.
Click to expand...

credible proof of this is required
 
Rucker61 said:
The police have fully automatic weapons. Why shouldn't the populace be equally armed?

What's a military grade weapon of war? A sniper rifle? An service issue handgun?
Click to expand...

I'm not playing this game with you. How about you explain it?

At what stage do we draw the line? Nuclear weapons? How about dirty bombs? Thermobaric warheads?

You tell me.
 
Obscurity said:
I'm not playing this game with you. How about you explain it?
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say that you felt that restricting semiautomatic rifles was wrong because the police have them? How would that logic not extend to everything the police have?

At what stage do we draw the line? Nuclear weapons? How about dirty bombs? Thermobaric warheads?

You tell me.
Click to expand...

Currently that's under Heller and Miller: firearms in common use for lawful purposes or having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia. McDonald extends those protections to the states. Given that machine guns, suppressors, armored cars and rocket launchers are all legal to own at the federal level, I can't see where any state gets the authority to further restrict them.
 
TurtleDude said:
credible proof of this is required
Click to expand...

House Republicans Sneak Sex-Ed Restriction Into ‘No Child Left Behind’ Rewrite - Rewire.News

GOP targets sex education for teens | NBC News

Newer articles:

Colorado bill would ban teaching abstinence-only sex ed in public schools | Fox News

This one is especially rich. Teaching abstinence is not sex education. It is well documented that people tend to do the opposite of what you tell them. Only one party seems to be continuously in bed with religious zealots when it comes to this.

Oh, and of course, plenty of red states (and some blue) do not require sex education to be scientifically correct. There are plenty more examples of "sex ed" in red states being "don't have sex."

You can simply google them. All of them.
 
Obscurity said:
House Republicans Sneak Sex-Ed Restriction Into ‘No Child Left Behind’ Rewrite - Rewire.News

GOP targets sex education for teens | NBC News

Newer articles:

Colorado bill would ban teaching abstinence-only sex ed in public schools | Fox News

This one is especially rich. Teaching abstinence is not sex education. It is well documented that people tend to do the opposite of what you tell them. Only one party seems to be continuously in bed with religious zealots when it comes to this.

Oh, and of course, plenty of red states (and some blue) do not require sex education to be scientifically correct. There are plenty more examples of "sex ed" in red states being "don't have sex."

You can simply google them. All of them.
Click to expand...

uh that doesn't prove anything. But I agree that abstinence only is idiotic
 
ataraxia said:
You’re right terms has been infringed already, back when they infringed on your right to own your own personal nuclear arms.
Click to expand...

You know how stupid you people sound when you bring up nuclear weapons?

It proves that you people don't give a single **** about having a serious conversation.
 
Rucker61 said:
Didn't you just say that you felt that restricting semiautomatic rifles was wrong because the police have them? How would that logic not extend to everything the police have?



Currently that's under Heller and Miller: firearms in common use for lawful purposes or having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia. McDonald extends those protections to the states. Given that machine guns, suppressors, armored cars and rocket launchers are all legal to own at the federal level, I can't see where any state gets the authority to further restrict them.
Click to expand...

The constitution does not say you have a right to a machine gun, or a tank, or an APC. The SCOTUS in your own ruling states very clearly the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” And “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The court in Heller also explained: “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Further, “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”
Click to expand...

That's Scalia's majority opinion. Not the dissent, which obviously is full of idiocy.

So no. You have no constitutional right to own an RPG-7. Nor an APC. Nor an M60. A handgun is a regular, common use and common carry item, like a shotgun, or a semi auto rifle.
 
apdst said:
You know how stupid you people sound when you bring up nuclear weapons?

It proves that you people don't give a single **** about having a serious conversation.
Click to expand...

Not any more stupid than "you people" sound when you bring up bump stocks and high capacity magazine clips as something you "need" to protect your house or hunt bunny rabbits. Even justice Scalia has said that the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment, like any other rights, are not unlimited. Trying to make any regulation on dangerous weapons sound like it's unconstitutional makes it clear you don't even give half a **** about having a serious conversation.
 
TurtleDude said:
uh that doesn't prove anything. But I agree that abstinence only is idiotic
Click to expand...

It proves the GOP as a whole and the republican party support not teaching sex education, which reduces the number of pregnancies, but support abstinence education, which is proven to do the opposite.

Hence my original claim.
 
Obscurity said:
It proves the GOP as a whole and the republican party support not teaching sex education, which reduces the number of pregnancies, but support abstinence education, which is proven to do the opposite.

Hence my original claim.
Click to expand...

and the Democrat party is the party of gun bans and other idiocy-which is the topic of this sub forum
 
ataraxia said:
Not any more stupid than "you people" sound when you bring up bump stocks and high capacity magazine clips as something you "need" to protect your house or hunt bunny rabbits. Even justice Scalia has said that the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment, like any other rights, are not unlimited. Trying to make any regulation on dangerous weapons sound like it's unconstitutional makes it clear you don't even give half a **** about having a serious conversation.
Click to expand...

The word "need" doesn't appear any where in the Bill of Rights.

Outlawing guns is unconstitutional. Confiscating private property without due process is unconstitutional.
Deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom