• 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!

The Purpose Of The Bill Of Rights

Indeed. Never claimed they were. But you dont get to violate others because you are afraid.

If you are a natural rights guy then I have a natural right endowed upon me by my creator to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness according to the Declaration. If so, then you are violating that by open carry demonstrations.
 
If you are a natural rights guy then I have a natural right endowed upon me by my creator to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness according to the Declaration. If so, then you are violating that by open carry demonstrations.
Then go hide behind your momma and let her protect you because you have no business being out in the adult world. The fact remains...you dont have the right to infringe on other peoples rights because you are scared.
 
In your opinion perhaps





So the government doesn't have the right to send people to prison in order to make the rest more safe?
Isn't the ability to sleep safely at night in your own home a "freedom" ?
My opinion has the same value as yours until supported.
The government has always had the authority (governments do not really have rights) to send people to prison,
so that is not an expansion of government authority.
What was it Franklin said,
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


Only unclear to those who don't look at the evidence of places/countries with strict gun control
GUN CONTROL WORKS
UK has had ONE mass shooting in 18 years, USA had 345 in 2017 alone.
So all crimes of violence require a gun? I did not know that!



Irrelevant

And not necessarily in every case.

Take Paddock for instance...what law did he break until he opened fire ? (Unless it's against the law to take a gun into a Las Vegas hotel? IDK, maybe it is)
Let's look at what I said in relation to your argument.
would you agree that the people who commit mass shootings, are already breaking other laws?
I have to say to anyone who understands English the word commit is Present Tense, in the act of.
We already have laws against killing people, which are ignored, why would any additional laws, not also be ignored.
People who would use violence to advance their goals, will not be deterred by breaking a few additional laws.
Read BREYER, J., dissenting
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
He looked at a lot of studies on this topic and Amici.
Here is what part of what the dissenting opinion found,
For one thing, they can lead us more deeply into the uncertainties that surround any effort to reduce crime, but they
cannot prove either that handgun possession diminishes crime or that handgun bans are ineffective. The statistics
do show a soaring District crime rate. And the District’s crime rate went up after the District adopted its handgun ban.
But, as students of elementary logic know, after it does not mean because of it.
 
The only natural law is the law of the jungle. The biggest duck gets to take your gun. That's the way it's always been.

lol........its clear you have much reading to do!

that you put yourself more knowledgeable then Cicero or john locke
 
Last edited:
Then go hide behind your momma and let her protect you because you have no business being out in the adult world. The fact remains...you dont have the right to infringe on other peoples rights because you are scared.

You are incorrect. Intimidating the Duck with your puny gun is illegal in all fifty states. The bar is set low, "reasonably induce fear."
 
If you are a natural rights guy then I have a natural right endowed upon me by my creator to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness according to the Declaration. If so, then you are violating that by open carry demonstrations.
Thats a goofy interpretation of natural rights, but you are certainly welcome to it.
 
You are incorrect. Intimidating the Duck with your puny gun is illegal in all fifty states. The bar is set low, "reasonably induce fear."
Merely having a firearm is not intimidating. MENACING someone with a firearm is a very different thing from HAVING a firearm. Your fear does not justify the violation of someone elses Constitutional rights.
 
Merely having a firearm is not intimidating. MENACING someone with a firearm is a very different thing from HAVING a firearm. Your fear does not justify the violation of someone elses Constitutional rights.

March with it in front of my house and I'll take it from you. Then we can settle things in court.
 
I think your avatar picture is goofy. There, we understand each other.
I can understand why you would feel it is 'goofy' what with the picture being that of a SEAL that gave his life while saving the lives of children.

Yes...we understand each other perfectly.
 
March with it in front of my house and I'll take it from you. Then we can settle things in court.
:lamo

Such an internet badass!

:lamo

1-Good luck.

2-If you attempt to take a law abiding citizens property, you can bet...you will be seeing the inside of a courtroom.
 
:lamo

Such an internet badass!

:lamo

1-Good luck.

2-If you attempt to take a law abiding citizens property, you can bet...you will be seeing the inside of a courtroom.

If it can be demonstrated that it is reasonable that your actions induced fear then you would be going to jail.

Your rights don't trump my rights.

In the south, if you were an African American and had an open carry demonstration in front of my home I could probably just start shooting.

I despise the south.
 
Sigh. This thread is about CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. My previous observation stands.

again you fail, you and i have discussed natural law, and when i mentioned john locke, anyone who has any sort of idea about natural law, Locke should come to mind.

you clearly did not know this.
 
If it can be demonstrated that it is reasonable that your actions induced fear then you would be going to jail.

Your rights don't trump my rights.

In the south, if you were an African American and had an open carry demonstration in front of my home I could probably just start shooting.

I despise the south.
Your schtick is boring. Your fear is your problem.
 
If you were doing so well you wouldn't be futilely attacking my education. The last time I checked this thread was about the Bill of Rights, not the magnificent Howard the Duck.

you have displayed you didn't know a basic bit of knowledge of a subject that you presented yourself as knowing about
 
you have displayed you didn't know a basic bit of knowledge of a subject that you presented yourself as knowing about

So, we must talk of each other's educations? Ok. Let's examine your craft.

"again you fail, you and i have discussed natural law, and when i mentioned john locke, anyone who has any sort of idea about natural law, Locke should come to mind."

Is that the work of a college graduate? Obviously, it isn't. Let's fix it.

"You failed. We have discussed natural law. Locke should come to mind."


Good times! Let's look at your current example:

"you have displayed you didn't know a basic bit of knowledge of a subject that you presented yourself as knowing about"

Let's fix it.

"You didn't know the basics about a subject you claimed to know."
 
Last edited:
So, we must talk of each other's educations? Ok. Let's examine your craft.

"again you fail, you and i have discussed natural law, and when i mentioned john locke, anyone who has any sort of idea about natural law, Locke should come to mind."

Is that the work of a college graduate?
:doh


if you are going to dispute natural law, then you must have some basic knowledge of it by reading up on the subject, this of coarse would lead you to locke, and since you were lost when it came to his name. this tells me you have not read at all on the subject, yet you profess to know about it.
 
:doh


if you are going to dispute natural law, then you must have some basic knowledge of it by reading up on the subject, this of coarse would lead you to locke, and since you were lost when it came to his name. this tells me you have not read at all on the subject, yet you profess to know about it.

Of COURSE, this thread is not about natural law. Nor is it about me.

Start one and I happily will discuss Locke, although I prefer Hobbes and social contract.
 
Back
Top Bottom