• 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!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

Thunder said:
what part of "well-regulated militia", don't YOU understand?

if a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, then I guess we are not a free state as we haven't had a government regulated citizen militia in more than a century.
Click to expand...

well regulated militia has no use in determining our rights under the second, ninth and tenth amendments.
 
AdamT said:
As you know perfectly well, the gun show loophole is the popular name given to the loophole in the BG check law that allows non-"dealers" to sell guns without background checks. How does feigning ignorance advance your argument?
Click to expand...

Its a neologism (thanks HM) that the ARC created to dishonestly try to infringe on our rights

there is no different laws that apply to gun shows.

as to ignorance-your posts are full of them
 
TurtleDude said:
well regulated militia has no use in determining our rights under the second, ninth and tenth amendments.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, I don't think it was put in the 2nd Amendment for no reason. Nevermind the fact that the organization of this Militia was clarrified in the Militia Act of 1792. It was clearly a government-organized, trained, and supervised organization.

one that has not existed for decades in this country, and who's function has been totally taken over by the National Guard.

hell, just look up "New York State Militia".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Regiment_(New_York_State_Militia)

clearly, the Militia isn't just some group of guys with guns.

its organized, trained, and supervised by the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

this act, formalized the nation-wide militias into the unified National Guard.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The question is simply whether individuals should be required to pass a background check before purchasing from a private seller as they are presently required to do when they purchase from a registered dealer.

My opinion is that most gun rights advocates are hypocrites and/or lack the courage of their convictions. They will argue that even moderate government restrictions on gun ownership are unconstitutional ... BUT they claim to support the law that prohibits the sale of guns to convicted felons ... BUT they oppose background checks that are necessary to enforce the prohibition on gun sales to felons.

And my challenge is this: if you argue that restrictions on gun sales are unconstitutional, have the courage of your convictions and oppose the restrictions on gun sales to felons. If, on the other hand, you concede that the government should try to limit gun sales to felons, have the courage of your convictions and support the elimination of the gun show (or if you prefer, private sale) loophole that guts the effectiveness of the background check system.
Click to expand...

you are confused as usual

supporting a law that prohibits felons from owning guns does not require we support making individuals conduct background checks mainly because the practical aspects of that are such that this requirement is worthless.
 
TurtleDude said:
Its a neologism (thanks HM) that the ARC created to dishonestly try to infringe on our rights

there is no different laws that apply to gun shows.

as to ignorance-your posts are full of them
Click to expand...

You are welcome Turtle. I am glad my efforts have paid off in some real learning. ;)
 
AdamT said:
The question is simply whether individuals should be required to pass a background check before purchasing from a private seller as they are presently required to do when they purchase from a registered dealer.
Click to expand...


Ok, but that should be a state issue.

My opinion is that most gun rights advocates are hypocrites and/or lack the courage of their convictions.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes we know you hold disdain for those that disagree with you.

They will argue that even moderate government restrictions on gun ownership are unconstitutional ...
Click to expand...

Depends on what you think is 'moderate' or not....Your viewpoint is not the benchmark, or at least I hope not.

BUT they claim to support the law that prohibits the sale of guns to convicted felons ...
Click to expand...

You seem to have totally ignored the study I gave on that exact claim of yours.

BUT they oppose background checks that are necessary to enforce the prohibition on gun sales to felons.
Click to expand...

No, this is you trying to hang that yoke around their neck, in the dishonest attempt to place them in the box you have invented for them.

And my challenge is this:
Click to expand...

Stop right there. Nobody cares what 'YOUR' challange is. We don't have to live up to your standards in this country, you have to meet the Constitution's standard. You have it backwards, as many liberals often do.

:peace

j-mac
 
haymarket said:
You are welcome Turtle. I am glad my efforts have paid off in some real learning. ;)
Click to expand...


sadly I knew the term years ago. It was something we Pro Rights coalition members applied to terms that the Anti Rights Coalition used such as "assault weapon" "saturday night special" etc
 
TurtleDude said:
you are confused as usual

supporting a law that prohibits felons from owning guns does not require we support making individuals conduct background checks mainly because the practical aspects of that are such that this requirement is worthless.
Click to expand...

requiring background checks for all gun-sales, would reduce the number of guns sold to criminals.

how is that a bad thing?

what's wrong with telling people: "if you sell a gun to someone who fails a background check, your ass goes to prison for 5 years"?

if that was me, I'd be damned sure to do the background check on anyone looking to buy a gun from me.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
you are confused as usual

supporting a law that prohibits felons from owning guns does not require we support making individuals conduct background checks mainly because the practical aspects of that are such that this requirement is worthless.
Click to expand...

The practical aspects of background checks aren't prohibitive. There are multiple approaches listed above that would be quite workale and not overly burdensome. You're just a typical pro-gun hypocrite toeing the NRA line.
 
Thunder said:
requiring background checks for all gun-sales, would reduce the number of guns sold to criminals.

how is that a bad thing?

what's wrong with telling people: "if you sell a gun to someone who fails a background check, your ass goes to prison for 5 years"?

if that was me, I'd be damned sure to do the background check on anyone looking to buy a gun from me.
Click to expand...


1) your first claim is pure speculation.

2) punishing people with five years in prison is idiotic given criminals are able to pass background checks at gun stores. sometimes the records are incomplete, sometimes the people doing the check miss something.

3) if you knowingly sell a gun to someone who cannot own one you already face criminal prosecution

4) people who are selling stolen guns to other criminals will continue to do so
 
AdamT said:
The practical aspects of background checks aren't prohibitive. There are multiple approaches listed above that would be quite workale and not overly burdensome. You're just a typical pro-gun hypocrite toeing the NRA line.
Click to expand...

You are a typical gun hater who has no clue about the current laws and what actually works.
 
So, TD, just to be clear where you stand, would you be so kind as to answer the following survey?

1. There should be a law against felons owning guns:

a) NO -- everyone has a constitutional right to own firearms;
b) YES, but it should be up to the states; or
c) YES, and it's properly a matter a federal law.

2. There should be a law requiring background checks of prospective gun purchasers:

a) NO, not under any circumstances;
b) YES, but only applied to registered dealers;
c) YES, same as (b) but it should be up to the states.

Thank you.
 
The second and tenth amendments clearly demonstrate that the federal government has no sound or proper involvement in this issue

and making private sellers do background checks is doomed to failure unless there is complete gun registration which of course is both unconstitutional and an impossibility to achieve
 
Thunder said:
again, you assume that the well-regulated Militia was mentioned for no reason.
Click to expand...

never said that-it has no bearing on our individual rights and more importantly, nothing in the BoR delegated power to the federal government

off to lunch BBL
 
TurtleDude said:
The second and tenth amendments clearly demonstrate that the federal government has no sound or proper involvement in this issue

and making private sellers do background checks is doomed to failure unless there is complete gun registration which of course is both unconstitutional and an impossibility to achieve
Click to expand...

Does the dormant commerce clause ring any bells for you? Have you actually passed a bar exam?
 
TurtleDude said:
never said that-it has no bearing on our individual rights and more importantly, nothing in the BoR delegated power to the federal government

off to lunch BBL
Click to expand...

you speak as though the 2nd Amendment was passed within a vacuum, with no related laws pased before it.....or after it.

The Constitution first spells out the well-regulated Militia in Article 1 Section 8...and then the Militia is discussed again in the Militia Act of 1792.

clearly, an intelligent understanding of the issue shows that the right to keep & bear arms was recognized as part of the government regulated, supervised, trained, and organized citizen Militia, which would be called up in times of rebellion, insurrection, war, and other emergencies.

various citizen Militias were called up during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and other events. However, the Militia Act of 1903 unified many nation-wide militias into the National Guard, which would now be armed by the government.

the citizen volunteer Militia no longer exists.
 
AdamT said:
Does the dormant commerce clause ring any bells for you? Have you actually passed a bar exam?
Click to expand...


Acedemic pedegree does not out weigh the strength of the argument.


j-mac
 
Thunder said:
you speak as though the 2nd Amendment was passed within a vacuum, with no related laws pased before it.....or after it.

The Constitution first spells out the well-regulated Militia in Article 1 Section 8...and then the Militia is discussed again in the Militia Act of 1792.

clearly, an intelligent understanding of the issue shows that the right to keep & bear arms was recognized as part of the government regulated, supervised, trained, and organized citizen Militia, which would be called up in times of rebellion, insurrection, war, and other emergencies.

various citizen Militias were called up during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and other events. However, the Militia Act of 1903 unified many nation-wide militias into the National Guard, which would now be armed by the government.

the citizen volunteer Militia no longer exists.
Click to expand...


So considering your interpetitation of the amendment, no one today should be allowed to own a gun? Other than military?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
So considering your interpetitation of the amendment, no one today should be allowed to own a gun? Other than military?

j-mac
Click to expand...

no, I believe we should have the right to own firearms for personal safety.

but I don't believe the 2nd Amendment is valid any longer, as the citizen Militia hasn't existed in almost a century.
 
Thunder said:
no, I believe we should have the right to own firearms for personal safety.

but I don't believe the 2nd Amendment is valid any longer, as the citizen Militia hasn't existed in almost a century.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that you just get to ignore amendments as invalid when it suits you, or is there a process to change the document?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Acedemic pedegree does not out weigh the strength of the argument.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The commerce clause negates the argument. The academic pedgiree means that TD is aware that he is making a false argument.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The commerce clause negates the argument. The academic pedgiree means that TD is aware that he is making a false argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah Ive seen liberals apply the commerce clause that way, it usually means as in this instance :"whatever I want".

Commerce clause needs to be walked back quite a lot, its used as justification for a lot of intrusions that would not have been acceptable by previous courts. The tenth is near non-existence as an argument due to the over riding influence of the commerce clause on tons of cases. It strengthens the fed but leaves that same government less accountable to the states and ultimately the people because local politics are a lot easier to change.
 
j-mac said:
Are you saying that you just get to ignore amendments as invalid when it suits you, or is there a process to change the document?

j-mac
Click to expand...

strawman. I didn't say we should ignore the 2nd Amendment because it doesn't suit me. I said its no longer valid, as the citizen Militia no longer exists.

learn the difference.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yeah Ive seen liberals apply the commerce clause that way, it usually means as in this instance :"whatever I want".

Commerce clause needs to be walked back quite a lot, its used as justification for a lot of intrusions that would not have been acceptable by previous courts. The tenth is near non-existence as an argument due to the over riding influence of the commerce clause on tons of cases. It strengthens the fed but leaves that same government less accountable to the states and ultimately the people because local politics are a lot easier to change.
Click to expand...

It isn't "liberals" that apply the commerce clause that way; it is nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent that applies the commerce clause that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom