• 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!

There Weren't any US Mass Shootings Yesterday

Media_Truth said:
Go ahead and sit in the passenger seat. Common sense Americans will drive for a while.
Click to expand...
These people aren't going to drive for awhile. The NRA is going to stay in the driver's seat.

I still marvel at the fact that people always assert common sense when they want to violate civil liberties.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
These people aren't going to drive for awhile. The NRA is going to stay in the driver's seat.

I still marvel at the fact that people always assert common sense when they want to violate civil liberties.
Click to expand...


the best is the hysterical attitude that we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING and when you point out that their Solutions are worthless and will do harm than good, they scream that we aren't doing anything.

It is like two laymen with no medical training seeing a man with a bleeding head wound. One calls for a doctor but the other screams he has to put a tourniquet around the victim's neck to stop the bleeding
 
Toggle Almendro said:
These people aren't going to drive for awhile. The NRA is going to stay in the driver's seat.

I still marvel at the fact that people always assert common sense when they want to violate civil liberties.
Click to expand...

What gun nuts need to get through their heads is that you have no civil liberties to own any gun you think you should be able to own, in any location. It is simply not the case - never has been, and never will be.
 
Media_Truth said:
What gun nuts need to get through their heads is that you have no civil liberties to own any gun you think you should be able to own, in any location. It is simply not the case - never has been, and never will be.
Click to expand...

what is this blather about? Under the second amendment, we should be able to own any firearm. as to guns? hard to see how a 120MM coaxial smoothbore gun or a 16 inch gun on a battleship is something someone can keep and BEAR. You gun banners need to get it through your heads that the second amendment no longer applies just to the federal government but the "several states" and banning commonly owned firearms is unconstitutional
 
Media_Truth said:
What gun nuts need to get through their heads is that you have no civil liberties to own any gun you think you should be able to own, in any location. It is simply not the case - never has been, and never will be.
Click to expand...
So long as there is no compelling government interest in preventing me from owning a type of weapon, I do indeed have the right to own it. And it has always been that way.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
So long as there is no compelling government interest in preventing me from owning a type of weapon, I do indeed have the right to own it. And it has always been that way.
Click to expand...

and I wish these gun banners would be more honest about their true motivations. Crime control has nothing to do with the silly laws they want to pass
 
Toggle Almendro said:
So long as there is no compelling government interest in preventing me from owning a type of weapon, I do indeed have the right to own it. And it has always been that way.
Click to expand...

Pass the gun control laws and let scotus decide on compelling interest. I am fine with that
 
Toggle Almendro said:
So long as there is no compelling government interest in preventing me from owning a type of weapon, I do indeed have the right to own it. And it has always been that way.
Click to expand...

Your history is a little lacking. See the New York SAFE law for one example. SCOTUS dropped a case challenging the SAFE law.

NYSAFE Act Gun Reform | SafeAct

"The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increases penalties for people who use illegal guns, mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposes the toughest assault weapons ban in the country. For hunters, sportsmen, and law abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns."

- Governor Andrew Cuomo

That is, unless you define the SAFE act as a "compelling government interest". Then I will agree with you.
 
Media_Truth said:
Your history is a little lacking. See the New York SAFE law for one example. SCOTUS dropped a case challenging the SAFE law.

NYSAFE Act Gun Reform | SafeAct

"The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increases penalties for people who use illegal guns, mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposes the toughest assault weapons ban in the country. For hunters, sportsmen, and law abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns."

- Governor Andrew Cuomo

That is, unless you define the SAFE act as a "compelling government interest". Then I will agree with you.
Click to expand...

"Fredo" or what ever they call that prick, is the type of asshole that the founders were worried about when they drafted the bill of rights. He's the scum bag that tried to ban honest citizens from having more than SEVEN rounds in their firearms (which is exactly what I said NY would do yeare ago when they passed their idiotic 10 round limit)

SAFE has nothing to do with this nonsense-other than making NY safer for violent criminals and Democrats -since those laws are intended to force gun owners to leave the state. I expect the Supreme Court or -when the second circuit gets enough Trump judges-to tell Cuomo to stick that SAFE BS where the sun don't shine
 
Toggle Almendro said:
That is incorrect. My history is robust.



That is an example of a blatantly unconstitutional law.



I do not. There is no compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle.
Click to expand...

or telling lawful citizens they cannot have magazines that contain the same number of rounds as cops
 
Toggle Almendro said:
That is incorrect. My history is robust.



That is an example of a blatantly unconstitutional law.



I do not. There is no compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle.
Click to expand...

In your opinion
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Feel free to try to list a compelling government interest for outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle.
Click to expand...

I could but that would simply be my legal opinion. Its not up to us...its up to scotus. Pass the laws and let them decide. I am fine with that


But let's be clear....a law is presumed constitutional until its ruled otherwise
 
Toggle Almendro said:
That is incorrect. My history is robust.

That is an example of a blatantly unconstitutional law.

I do not. There is no compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle.
Click to expand...

You have the most Libertarian SCOTUS in history, and they dropped the case. That alone should tell you that you are badly mistaken.
 
Media_Truth said:
You have the most Libertarian SCOTUS in history, and they dropped the case. That alone should tell you that you are badly mistaken.
Click to expand...
Nice appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm not mistaken. There is no compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
So in other words, you cannot produce any such compelling government interest.
Click to expand...

Nor can you. You can produce an opinion but not a fact. And you are entitled to your opinion.


Pass the laws and let scotus decide
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Of course. My position is that there is no such compelling government interest.



I can produce the fact that no one has been able to produce any such compelling government interest.



Never!
Click to expand...

Your position is an opinion....not a fact.

You can have all the opinions in the world and they add up to nothing.

Scotus decides. Pass the laws and they can decide
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom