• 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!

Argue the other side.

That is patently not true. Every time a Democrat won the Electoral College when losing the popular vote I stood tall and loudly opposed it.

NO Democrat has EVER won the Electoral College when losing the popular vote.

ALL Democratic winners have WON THE MOST POPULAR VOTES.
 
I support waiting periods,an assault weapons ban, and smaller magazines.

I do not agree with what was said above....
 
NO Democrat has EVER won the Electoral College when losing the popular vote.

ALL Democratic winners have WON THE MOST POPULAR VOTES.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a winner!!!!!!!!
 
I support waiting periods,an assault weapons ban, and smaller magazines.

I do not agree with what was said above....

What's the reasoning behind waiting periods? Should those who already own guns be subject to them?

Define "assault weapon", define "ban", what is the purpose of this ban and how would you enforce it?

What's the purpose of the restriction and what is he optimal number to achieve this purpose? How would you enforce it?
 
What's the reasoning behind waiting periods? Should those who already own guns be subject to them?

Define "assault weapon", define "ban", what is the purpose of this ban and how would you enforce it?

What's the purpose of the restriction and what is he optimal number to achieve this purpose? How would you enforce it?

Waiting periods reduce gun deaths
 
No. I am not saying that.
You said exactly that.
Let me understand wht you are saying.

Are you saying there should be NO judicial review at the federal level at all (thus no need for SCOTUS) and all judicial review should take place at the state level?
SCOTUS does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of any State. It DOES have the authority to strike down any law of the Federal government not in keeping with the Constitution of the United States.
 
You said exactly that.

SCOTUS does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of any State. It DOES have the authority to strike down any law of the Federal government not in keeping with the Constitution of the United States.

Then stop running and answer this question.


Who decides what is a reasonable search?
 
No - they exist.

The Declaration was a one shot statement that served as our birth announcement. After it was issued it served its purpose and was more or less forgotten for years. Other than a very important historical document, it serves no real purpose to government today other than to remind us of the events of its writing and the thoughts contained in it.

The Constitution is NOT the same document that was written in 1787 as it has been changed 27 times over the years and no longer reflect that world which is no more.

And it saddles us with a election mechanism from the 1700's which recently FAILED to operate as promised to protect the people of this nation.

It is a lose/lose proposition.

The electroral college didn't fail.
 
Already answered. Pay attention.

Then answer it again. Why are you so afraid of the truth?


You repeat yourself over and over again on here. LOL I will answer it if you don't
 
Folks He can not answer. Here is why.


Scotus must determine what is reasonable for a search. They must be the final arbiters of what reasonable means. A reasonable search at the airport changed after 911. A reasonable search in 1950 is not the same as it was in 2018. SCOTUS must interpret the constitution for the times we are in. Case closed.



Game set match. LOL
 
It most certainly did since the promise made by Hamilton to the nation was broken and failed to be exercised in 2016.

You mean Hamilton the Federalist who didn't trust the common man? What value do his promises have, anyway? He was never elected to Congress or served as President. His participation in the Constitutional Convention was limited, too.
 
You mean Hamilton the Federalist who didn't trust the common man? What value do his promises have, anyway? He was never elected to Congress or served as President. His participation in the Constitutional Convention was limited, too.

As the main author of the Federalist Papers, it was primarily Hamilton who helped sell the Constitution to the American people to support ratification. And his explanation reveals how the Founders believed the EC would function and act.
 
As the main author of the Federalist Papers, it was primarily Hamilton who helped sell the Constitution to the American people to support ratification. And his explanation reveals how the Founders believed the EC would function and act.

Then he wasn't actually in position to make an official promise, and in any case, the EC keeping electoral power in the hands of smaller states is exactly what the Anti-federalists would have wanted, and that's who Hamilton had to convince.
 
Then he wasn't actually in position to make an official promise, and in any case, the EC keeping electoral power in the hands of smaller states is exactly what the Anti-federalists would have wanted, and that's who Hamilton had to convince.

Actually, the Federalist Papers helped get the Constitution ratified. He was in a perfect position. So the promises of Hamilton are indeed important and significant.

This modern obsession with smaller states was never mentioned in Federalist 68.

And the smaller states are ignored today in campaigning.

So that modernist excuse dies a bitter and hard death.
 
It most certainly did since the promise made by Hamilton to the nation was broken and failed to be exercised in 2016.

Hamilton's promise wasn't broken, and the electoral college worked as intended.
 
Hamilton's promise wasn't broken, and the electoral college worked as intended.

Oaky. Here is your chance to prove your claim. Please submit verifiable evidence of the state electors meetings where the Russian involvement in our election was discussed and investigated to protect the nation from a creature of a foreign government just as Hamilton promised the nation it would function to do.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Lets see your evidence that they did function as promised.
 
I'm interested to know if anyone on the pro-gun control side can argue from the point of the pro-2nd Amendment side.

And if anyone from the pro-2nd Amendment side can argue the pro-gun control side.

I can't right now as I'm too tired. Going to get some sleep after I post this. But for now consider that this is what the thread is about. Argue the opposite side. If you can't, or won't, then simply please do not post in the thread. I would like to see an honest attempt at this.
I'm pro-gun so I will argue the gun-control side. I will keep it short and it will not be comprehensive, because I don't like reading walls of text, even my own :P

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A few years ago the Supreme Court created an individual right to keep and bear arms, so it's in the interest of the free State to ensure those individuals, who are the militia, are well regulated. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the unorganised militia was REQUIRED to drill with their local organised militia unit once per month. Today we can use law enforcment aproved gun clubs to serve as a platform for providing that manditory training for anyone who wants to own a firearm for any reason; with additional training requierments for anyone seeking an actual carry permit. Additionaly, the modern military registers all of it's arms, and so private gun owners should likewise register their arms with their local gun club or police department. Just as the militia units of old endured reguler inspection of their arms by the authorities, so should indiviguals wishing to own weapons suitable for militia use be subject to the inspection of their arms kept in their homes.
 
Back
Top Bottom