• 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!

Do you have a conceal and carry license?

Do you have a conceal and carry permit?

  • Total voters
    66
Alvin T. Grey said:
How does that prove me wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm being a little ornery here because you seem to be of the opinion that simply offering that some token few incidents of domestic violence somehow changes or negates the statistical facts over the greater population.

Reverend_Hellh0und made a statement about a population, and your response was to state something about negligible exceptions. Yes, there are incidents of domestic violence involving a firearms. So the **** what? What you said does not change what Reverend_Hellh0und said. What the **** are you talking about? Are you ignorant on the topic or are you deliberately trolling? If you're ignorant we will be happy to educate you. If you're trolling, please just leave the thread.

Alvin T. Grey said:
Or are you saying that the presence of a firearm in the house actually prevented a domestic dispute?
Click to expand...

In the home, or on the person, either-or.

Alvin T. Grey said:
Because that is quite frankly bollox.
Click to expand...

That's an opinion easily refuted with empirical evidence. You may have a problem with people protecting themselves, but I don't.
 
Goobieman said:
This is just sad.

The court (not Scalia) said:

This is a simple statemment that the right has boundaries. This is not new, as everyone knows that all rights have boundaries; things outside those boundaries do not enjoy the protection of the right.
This is my postion, exactly.

The court (not Scalia) then said:

This is an example of how there is a limit to the 'manner and purpose' of keeping and carrying a weapon, and how that limit is relatedto the boundary of the right itself. No one argues that these restrctions violate the right to arms as everyone agrees that these things lie outside the right.

THEN the court (not Scalia) said:

Look! A reference to Miller! Who brought up Miller? Me!
As per Miller....
All classes firearns are "in common use" and "part of the regular equipment" of the standing army. This precludes the use of this decision to support the idea that some firearms can be prohibited from ownership and use by the citizenry, as ALL of them fall under the definition of "arms".


Yes. I understand that the decision doesn't support your position.

This interpretation is erronious.
The court (not Scalia) said that SOME restrictions, such as those noted, that deal with things that lie outside the right to arms, do not violate the amendment, not that any every manner of restriction is allowed by the Constitution. Allowable restrictions are based on the inherent limits to the right -- just I said.

So, the court (not Scalia) said that:
-The right to arms is held by the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia;
-Restrictions that limit things that fall outside the right to arms are allowed by the Constitution.
-Keeping and bearing of any and all classes of fireams, being 'in common use' and 'part of ordinary military equipment' are protected by the Constitution
Click to expand...
Interesting that DH did not respond to this.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
There is no court judges write this. Which judge wrote it.
Click to expand...
No one judge writes the ruling/holding. It is a product of the court as a whole.
 
Goobieman said:
No one judge writes the ruling/holding. It is a product of the court as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. Unless it is Scalia
JC-hysterical.gif
 
ptif219 said:
Yeah sure. Unless it is Scalia
Click to expand...
Apparently you dont understand the difference between the holding of the court -- the actual ruling -- and the majority/concurring/dissenting opinion. Allow me to help remove the veil of ignorance that covers your eyes.

The holding of the court is the decision voted on by the court, and as such, it is not written by a justice. This is the actual law of the ruling, the part that binding on the parties involved, the part that resolves the issue between them, and the part that creates precedent.

This contrasts with the majority/concurring/dissenting opinions, which -are- written by justices, whose names are attached to same. The opinion, while often useful in explaining the reasoning of the ruling and may be useful when consiudering other cases, is not actual law, and is not binding on anyone.
 
Goobieman said:
Apparently you dont understand the difference between the holding of the court -- the actual ruling -- and the majority/concurring/dissenting opinion. Allow me to help remove the veil of ignorance that covers your eyes.

The holding of the court is the decision voted on by the court, and as such, it is not written by a justice. This is the actual law of the ruling, the part that binding on the parties involved, the part that resolves the issue between them, and the part that creates precedent.

This contrasts with the majority/concurring/dissenting opinions, which -are- written by justices, whose names are attached to same. The opinion, while often useful in explaining the reasoning of the ruling and may be useful when consiudering other cases, is not actual law, and is not binding on anyone.
Click to expand...

Then why mention Scalia?
 
ptif219 said:
Then why mention Scalia?
Click to expand...
The person to whom I was responding thought that Scalia wrote the ruling, and that since Scalia, a conservative, wrote it, then the pro-gun side should take it (and the posters interpretation) as gospel.

I was merely pointing out his error, and left alone his fallacy.
 
Goobieman said:
The person to whom I was responding thought that Scalia wrote the ruling, and that since Scalia, a conservative, wrote it, then the pro-gun side should take it (and the posters interpretation) as gospel.

I was merely pointing out his error, and left alone his fallacy.
Click to expand...

The Bias is having to mention Scalia
 
ptif219 said:
Why use a name if it is the whole court?
Click to expand...

Only one person physically sits down at the keyboard and types.

We would rather a Justice then a paralegal draft the opinion, and we would like to know which justice drafts which opinion.

The document is brought to the court and the majority justices agree, but only one justice actually drafts the document.

This is also true of the dissenting opinion. Only one of the dissenting Justices sits down at the keyboard and drafts the loosing opinion, even though all of the dissenting justices agree on the final draft before publication.

Take the DP rules page on the Perma-Ban Hearing for example. All of the Mods agreed on the rule even though only Tashah published it.
 
Jerry said:
Only one person physically sits down at the keyboard and types.

We would rather a Justice then a paralegal draft the opinion, and we would like to know which justice drafts which opinion.

The document is brought to the court and the majority justices agree, but only one justice actually drafts the document.

This is also true of the dissenting opinion. Only one of the dissenting Justices sits down at the keyboard and drafts the loosing opinion, even though all of the dissenting justices agree on the final draft before publication.

Take the DP rules page on the Perma-Ban Hearing for example. All of the Mods agreed on the rule even though only Tashah published it.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge
 
ptif219 said:
Nice dodge
Click to expand...

What dodge :confused:

I gave you a direct answer to your question. I gave you the exact information you asked for.

ptif219 said:
Why use a name if it is the whole court?
Click to expand...

Because he wrote it.

It's not like anyone is claiming that only one Justice decided the issue.
 
Last edited:
What exactly are you two arguing about? I've lost track.
 
Goshin said:
What exactly are you two arguing about? I've lost track.
Click to expand...

ptif219 insists that the ruling is biased because only one Justice physically wrote the court's opinion.
 
ptif219 said:
No it is bias of you to mention Scalia
Click to expand...

He wrote the opinion, saying so is merely a fact, not bias.

Now why don't you forget the pretend semantics game and address the ruling. Alternatively, you might respond to the ruling being used as a source with another source.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
He wrote the opinion, saying so is merely a fact, not bias.

Now why don't you forget the pretend semantics game and address the ruling. Alternatively, you might respond to the ruling being used as a source with another source.
Click to expand...

I see if you disagree it is Scalia if you agree it is the court
 
Jerry said:
I'm being a little ornery here because you seem to be of the opinion that simply offering that some token few incidents of domestic violence somehow changes or negates the statistical facts over the greater population.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you view the statistics.
Study after study has shown that the vast majority of murders are comitted by ones nearest and dearest.
Murder - Crime in the United States 2004

Couple of things I take out of these statistics:

1: For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances. (Based on Table 2.11.) The 2004 data also revealed that 33.0 percent of female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.7 percent of the male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. (Based on Tables 2.4 and 2.11.)

2.Law enforcement cited that arguments, including those over money or property, were the cause for 44.4 percent of the murders. Other circumstances, such as brawls and juvenile gang killings, were noted in 12.8 percent of the murders

One could argue that those figures do not suggest premeditation.

Reverend_Hellh0und made a statement about a population, and your response was to state something about negligible exceptions. Yes, there are incidents of domestic violence involving a firearms. So the **** what? What you said does not change what Reverend_Hellh0und said. What the **** are you talking about? Are you ignorant on the topic or are you deliberately trolling? If you're ignorant we will be happy to educate you. If you're trolling, please just leave the thread.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out above the statistics suggest that most murders are comitted by a family member or a friend, mostly over an arguement, and in a large amount of times during a brawl.
The presence of a firearm in those situations is not advisable.
That is the point I was making.






That's an opinion easily refuted with empirical evidence. You may have a problem with people protecting themselves, but I don't.
Click to expand...
It's not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom