• 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!

SCOTUS said that the 2nd amendment allowed people to use guns for self defense

Fledermaus said:
English... Do you speak it?

The link went page to the PAGE and not a POST.

POST NUMBER?

How about you try to make yourself understood?
Click to expand...

All you know how to do is troll not argue. You need valid arguments for that not just right wing "hearing the wind blow".
 
Fledermaus said:
For over thirty posts you have been asked what "for-cause" means and for over thirty posts you have not answered.
Click to expand...

Look at it from my perspective, only Trolls have no valid arguments only diversion and obstinacy. For-Cause means any Cause will do. Only right wingers, never get it.
 
danielpalos said:
All you know how to do is troll not argue. You need valid arguments for that not just right wing "hearing the wind blow".
Click to expand...

Another example of running away from the question.

danielpalos said:
Look at it from my perspective, only Trolls have no valid arguments only diversion and obstinacy. For-Cause means any Cause will do. Only right wingers, never get it.
Click to expand...

And another case of prattle that does not define "for-cause".

danielpalos said:
Anybody who understands English, gets it.
Click to expand...

Laughably incorrect.

Post number?
 
TurtleDude said:
It is a really stupid argument to debate whether natural law exists. It doesn't matter. What matters is what the founders believed and what they intended
Click to expand...

Unfortunately what they intended has been perverted over the last 200 years

The 2nd amendment is clear in it's intended purpose

It was a pipe dream that ordinary citizens banding together can defeat an external threat. Like the very concept of a militia, it is a relic of 18th century thinking

Not unlike certain extreme views on the left of British politics in the 1980's, of disbanding the army and instead arming the workers for defense.


They romanticized about 1920's Russian Soviets....just as the RW of US politics romanticize about the colonial "minutemen" of 230 years ago.
 
Rich2018 said:
Unfortunately what they intended has been perverted over the last 200 years

The 2nd amendment is clear in it's intended purpose

It was a pipe dream that ordinary citizens banding together can defeat an external threat. Like the very concept of a militia, it is a relic of 18th century thinking

Not unlike certain extreme views on the left of British politics in the 1980's, of disbanding the army and instead arming the workers for defense.


They romanticized about 1920's Russian Soviets....just as the RW of US politics romanticize about the colonial "minutemen" of 230 years ago.
Click to expand...


Strange how those saying guns are needed to fight tyranny, aren't supporting the rioters today.
 
Fledermaus said:
Speaking of clueless and Causeless.

You can't even cite a simple post number.
Click to expand...

I am not the one claiming an incorrect usage of it. You have to prove I am wrong and how I am wrong. Go ahead and post a definition of for-cause for us; I can work with it and not make excuses, like You simply because there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
 
danielpalos said:
I am not the one claiming an incorrect usage of it. You have to prove I am wrong and how I am wrong. Go ahead and post a definition of for-cause for us; I can work with it and not make excuses, like You simply because there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
Click to expand...

Real definition posted.

Your turn.

Your meaning of "for-cause"?
 
Fledermaus said:
Real definition posted.

Your turn.

Your meaning of "for-cause"?
Click to expand...

...remember to hold the line.

Express not Implied in any way!

An extra legal for-Cause criteria that denies and disparages equality and equal protection of the laws concerning employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.

Unemployment insurance code at 1256. An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.
Click to expand...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
...remember to hold the line.

Express not Implied in any way!

An extra legal for-Cause criteria that denies and disparages equality and equal protection of the laws concerning employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...

What does "for-cause" mean to you?
 
"Since the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin—assisted by three murderously indifferent cop buddies—protests over abusive and lethal police conduct have spread across the country and turned destructive. Law-and-order types take that as an opening to shift the topic from the long, troubling history of law enforcement in this country to the excesses of the protesters. Conservative-populist pundit Tucker Carlson put the cherry on top of that tactic when he invoked the word "tyranny" and applied it not to government employees who deploy violence as a tool of first resort when terrorizing communities, but to those who turn violent in response.

"Rioting is a form of tyranny," Carlson said on his Fox News show. "The strong and the violent oppress the weak and the unarmed. It is oppression."


Riots May Be Destructive, but Abusive Policing Is Tyranny – Reason.com


So if guns are ever banned and a new revolution erupts, we can can't on Tucker, to denounces those damned revolutionaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom