Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am having trouble following what it is you are advocating for or against...could you please be specific as to what your views are for or against, to what level etc
so we as debaters can understand what we are actually debating
my view:
1. every person 'within reason' has a right to own a weapon if they chose
2. the exceptions would be: convicted felons....people who far under the launtenberg act (domestic issues)......people deamed 'not fit for society in their mental state'...ie people who should be instutitionalize....
3. I have no issues with background checks
4. I have no issues with a small waiting period for those background checks
5. I dont agree with the 'assault weapon' ban, especially since it is a bunch of bull
"My big question to the anti gunners always ends with this:"
I wish I had more time for this fun, but can you folks really be serious?
Perhaps this question is not for me, but if not, just who -- exactly -- are the "anti gunners" being addressed here?
I for one am not an anti gunner. I feel strongly about maintaining our right to bear arms, upholding our Second Amendment!
This false premise, repeated ad nauseam is just plain dense. I am sorry, but how frustrating! What comes next?
How about I start my next comment like this, "for all of you obsessed with the use of weapons in total disregard for everything and everyone else..."
That a good start you think?
Just asking...
So obviously you don't get it. If a constitutional right is unable to be subject to ANY of the parts I just stated, why is the constitutional right to own a firearm? In fact most anti gun folks (left/liberals) have actively fought what I put up, but only when it comes to the rights they believe in. That pesky 2A should just be skipped.
God, what a sad state of affairs when that's the bright side...
Maybe if politicians on both sides of the issue quit politicizing tragedies like these, some substantive solutions could at the very least get debated....
God, what a sad state of affairs when that's the bright side...
Maybe if politicians on both sides of the issue quit politicizing tragedies like these, some substantive solutions could at the very least get debated....
This is not another Roseburg affair. It appears to be a frat party gone bad. Not that that is a consolation to the friends and family of the people involved.
"The founders took careful pains to ensure that the Constitution was written so that even a common man could understand it. They did this by design, because they knew that people would try to contort and invent against the text."
I am no Constitutional scholar as admitted before, certainly not like others posting in this thread who seem convinced they are so qualified, but I don't believe the founders were trying to write the Constitution for the sake of easy understanding. They thought, argued and debated long and hard over the words they felt would best achieve their goal of establishing a rule of law that would guide America as summarized in the preamble. That was the goal, and no easy one to achieve or take for granted.
As for understanding, the founders included Article III, to establish that the judicial power of the United States would be vested in one Supreme Court. Why, because they knew not everyone would necessarily understand or interpret the Constitution in the same way. This is why I always remind people or caution them about thinking they know so much as to what is or is not Constitutional, because more often than not, they really don't know. Myself included as I have been surprised at times by SCOTUS rulings, but I respect what the Supreme Court Justices know that the rest of us don't.
"So, when the Supreme Court hands down a ruling, than yes, I think a laymen is in just as relevant a position to challenge the ruling and make a case against it as even a learned scholar."
"See, you're not really answering the question. Your just saying things that enable you to avoid answering it. You've got a lot of generalized opinions but no specific solutions in mind."
First off, I really don't try to avoid anything. In fact, the opposite, but this is a complicated problem with no easy solutions. There is no "magic bullet," (pun intended). Preventing or reducing gun violence is like a lot of the other serious societal problems we face today; drugs, crime, poverty, ignorance, terrorism...
There is no real solution, there is only what broad multi-faceted strategy of many efforts that can only help to reduce the level of these problems. There are the laws, there is enforcement, there are social services and all the rest that when combined as effectively as possible, serve to reduce the incidents, the effects of the problem.
You want specifics? I really wouldn't know where to begin, there are lots of ideas and suggestions always being promoted, but if anyone wants to pose any one particular idea for a specific "yea or nay" vote from me, I can do that...
So obviously you don't get it. If a constitutional right is unable to be subject to ANY of the parts I just stated, why is the constitutional right to own a firearm? In fact most anti gun folks (left/liberals) have actively fought what I put up, but only when it comes to the rights they believe in. That pesky 2A should just be skipped.
I surely don't get this comment, that's for sure.
Again, be specific, with just one example of what you believe I have advocated that is unconstitutional. Someone else also wrote, "Actually, you do disagree with our Constitution. You've shown that quite well in this thread."
I asked for any proof whatsoever that might justify this ridiculous charge, and I am still waiting. Of course, none is coming, because there is no justification for the charge.
On the other hand, we sure do see plenty of evidence that anti-gun control folks will quickly accuse anyone of disrespecting the Constitution regardless whether there is any truth to the claim or not. This is why I often note that these folks don't know the first thing about the Constitution.
Fact is, there are gun control laws on the books, deemed Constitutional. Therefore, gun control laws by definition are not necessarily unconstitutional, no matter what the common layman might think...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come again?
