• 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:
no one should be able to buy a gun without proof that they are legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

there are three ways around this:

a. set up computers at police stations where private gun-sellers can look up potential buyers to see if they are kosher.

b. add information on everyone's drivers license, stating if they are allowed to own a firearm. create a national website where this info can be easily looked up and updated by local authorities.

c. ban personal sale of firearms. (won't work as you can't enforce it without registration).
Click to expand...


On should never, ever, under any circumstances, be required to prove that he is entitled to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right.

The burden should always be is on one who wishes to deny the exercise of a right.
 
Boo Radley said:
So you guys will accept what the major of scholors say on any issue, not just your one or my one, but the majority. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Not at all but when liberal conservative and moderates say that the statist collective interpretation is wrong I find it humorous that you ARC members would argue otherwise
 
AdamT said:
Right, it's only the academic all stars who engage in idiotitc pursuits like ranking Supreme Courts as if they were American Idol judges. :2rofll:
Click to expand...

I was changing gears and noting that almost all academics reject the collectivist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
 
Bob Blaylock said:
On should never, ever, under any circumstances, be required to prove that he is entitled to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right.

The burden should always be is on one who wishes to deny the exercise of a right.
Click to expand...

sure, that's fine.

swipe your drivers license so I can make sure you ain't a felon and have the right to own a firearm.

or, give me your drivers license number, so I can look it up on the national database.

instant background check. :)
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Yes, as I mentioned above. But only in Heller. Never before.
Click to expand...

that is because it was assumed. its only when lower courts tried to uphold racist or anti "papist" gun laws did this come up
 
Thunder said:
sure, that's fine.

swipe your drivers license so I can make sure you ain't a felon and have the right to own a firearm.

instant background check. :)
Click to expand...

and if you are a bad guy with illegal guns you will act just like the street corner drug dealer or pimp does

cash is the only answer you need
 
TurtleDude said:
Not at all but when liberal conservative and moderates say that the statist collective interpretation is wrong I find it humorous that you ARC members would argue otherwise
Click to expand...

I haven't chimed in on that issue, but I knew you wouldn't accept consensus, so why bring it up?
 
TurtleDude said:
that is because it was assumed. its only when lower courts tried to uphold racist or anti "papist" gun laws did this come up
Click to expand...

That's a crock of ****, and hopefully you know it.
 
Boo Radley said:
James, you can do better than this silliness. Your comparison simply doesn't work. You're going to have make one that actually compares if you want a reasoned response.
Click to expand...


You are the one who said "The first part of the sentence cannot be seen as spearate from the second part. The first part sets up the context for the second part.".SO by that logic the 1st amendment only apply to people in a religion.
 
AdamT said:
That's a crock of ****, and hopefully you know it.
Click to expand...
He's right. The first U.S. gun control was targeted at freedmen. That is historical FACT.
 
jamesrage said:
You are the one who said "The first part of the sentence cannot be seen as spearate from the second part. The first part sets up the context for the second part.".SO by that logic the 1st amendment only apply to people in a religion.
Click to expand...

True, but you did not give an equivilent sentence. You're free to try again.
 
TurtleDude said:
and if you are a bad guy with illegal guns you will act just like the street corner drug dealer or pimp does

cash is the only answer you need
Click to expand...

hence the need for a formalized, digital gun tracking system. so that we know where every gun is and its been sold to a legal gun owner.

no more of this paper & pencil bull****, mailing records to the ATF once every 60 days bull****. Its 2012 folks.
 
AdamT said:
That's a crock of ****, and hopefully you know it.
Click to expand...

You have not the education or the experience to possibly understand what I know on this subject since its something I have been involved with over 35 years including having articles published on it and having lectured at ABA accredited law schools on the topic but yes-racism and bigotry were major foundations of gun control in this country

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
 
Thunder said:
hence the need for a formalized, digital gun tracking system. so that we know where every gun is and its been sold to a legal gun owner.

no more of this paper & pencil bull****, mailing records to the ATF once every 60 days bull****. Its 2012 folks.
Click to expand...

so criminals are going to comply with that. and the people who smuggle illegal drugs into this country along with illegal arms are going to comply
 
TurtleDude said:
so criminals are going to comply with that. and the people who smuggle illegal drugs into this country along with illegal arms are going to comply
Click to expand...

this is about the gun dealers. and yes, they will comply with a national digital record system for all transactions, from wholesale to retail.

they will comply or lose their license to sell guns. :)
 
TurtleDude said:
You have not the education or the experience to possibly understand what I know on this subject since its something I have been involved with over 35 years including having articles published on it and having lectured at ABA accredited law schools on the topic but yes-racism and bigotry were major foundations of gun control in this country

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
Click to expand...

1) I don't believe you;

2) There are a lot of stupid law review articles and lecturers; and

3) I wasn't responding to anything about racism and gun control.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
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"?
Click to expand...


The exact same thing that is wrong with telling someone “If you choose to practice the Jewish religion, your ass goes to prison for 5 years”.

The Constitution explicitly affirms that we have a right to keep and bear arms (which necessarily includes the right to sell and bear arms), and which prohibits government from infringing upon this right. The government has no more business interfering with this right than it has in telling us who may belong to what religion.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The exact same thing that is wrong with telling someone “If you choose to practice the Jewish religion, your ass goes to prison for 5 years”.

The Constitution explicitly affirms that we have a right to keep and bear arms (which necessarily includes the right to sell and bear arms), and which prohibits government from infringing upon this right. The government has no more business interfering with this right than it has in telling us who may belong to what religion.
Click to expand...

So you would say that convicted felons have a right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, yes? Will one pro-gun person at least have the balls to admit this? I could actually respect that position for at least being internally consistent.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not a matter of disagreement. The entire context of it no longer exists. Logically, that should be a problem for everyone. I merely would prefer it said what we really mean.
Click to expand...


What the....? Look, if you want to change a constitutionally protected right, then amend the constitution. Short of that you have Judicial activism period.

Regulations are not going away.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that, however, I do think we need to evaluate and discard those regulations that are duplicates, and, or work against our rights as defined by the Constitution.

This has been long established. And the courts are nto setting law. They are reading the law, and telling us what it says we can and can't do.
Click to expand...

What? Ok, explain to me in the simplest terms what a law is then....

You must realize by now that two people can read the same body of words and see two completely different things. That's why we need courts.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially when ideology is involved. I am not saying that we need to do away with courts, just that they get back to their Constitutional restrictions, and not make law. Why is that a bad thing?


j-mac
 
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...

The Second Amendment, like every other part of the Constitution, is and will remain valid until such time as the Constitution is explicitly amended to repeal it.

As the Constitution currently stands, every free American has the right to keep and bear arms, and Government has no legitimate authority whatsoever to interfere in any way with this right.

The only way to change this would be by ratifying a new Amendment to supersede the Second Amendment.
 
AdamT said:
So you would say that convicted felons have a right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, yes? Will one pro-gun person at least have the balls to admit this? I could actually respect that position for at least being internally consistent.
Click to expand...

Why should convicted felons be barred from owning guns? Maybe their crime was non-violent? If it was who says they will commit a crime with a gun?
 
taxigirl said:
Why should convicted felons be barred from owning guns? Maybe their crime was non-violent? If it was who says they will commit a crime with a gun?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they should. I'm trying to get a pro-gun person to take a position on the question one way or the other, and so far not one of them has had the cojones to state an opinion.
 
Thunder said:
no one should be able to buy a gun without first making sure they have the legal right to buy a gun. its simply common sense.

we need to find a way to ensure that everyone who buys a gun, has the legal right to do so.
Click to expand...

“Innocent until proven guilty.”

The burden of proof belongs, not on someone who wishes to exercise a right, but on one who wants to deny that right.
 
AdamT said:
1) I don't believe you;

2) There are a lot of stupid law review articles and lecturers; and

3) I wasn't responding to anything about racism and gun control.
Click to expand...

of course you don't believe me. its consistent with your complete fail on this subject
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom