• 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 Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Zyphlin said:
Wonderful to see what a hypocritically transparent thing your signature line is then. So you actually expect people to buy the faux "I don't support taking guns away from people" claims when it's been clear you've support the notion of removing guns from mentally unstable people and then turn around and proclaim that the very nature of WANTING to own certain guns inherently makes ones mental status "highly suspect"...thus creating a scenario where simply WANTING to own a particular gun makes one inelligable to participate in their civil rights.

You are no better and no less of a crusader against individual liberty than those who proclaim it's okay to ban two men from being married because they can both still marry women. You even delude yourself into believing that you somehow standand for "liberty and justice for all" like they do. But you're not better...just like them you pick and choose based on your POLITICAL agenda and opinions and don't give two ****s about "liberty".

And just because I question the mentality of the type of person who wants to own military assault weapons...doesn't mean that I don't support their right to own other weapons.

The bottom line is....the Constitution does not preclude reasonable restrictions of gun ownership. It simply doesn't., no matter how much the gun nuts and the NRA scream about it. The Constitution probably DOES preclude flat out weapon bans. What about military type assault weapons? That is probably questionable.

The singular act of desiring to own a firearm, ANY firearm, is in no way...shape...or form a reliable, reasonable, or understandable means of determining ones mental faculties. To suggest such is pure bigotry, nothing less. It's just excused bigotry because it's against people who you deem worthy of discriminating and being prejudiced against.
Click to expand...

Sorry Zyph...but you are wrong. I don't support banning handguns. I do, however, believe that there are some weapons such as military assault weapons that justifiably should be banned. That doesn't mean that I am in support of a flat out ban on guns. Your argument is akin to saying that if you don't believe people should have access to missle launchers and hand grenades, then you obviously support bans on all weapons.

And YES....I do believe that there are people out there who should not be able to own weapons...but because I believe that convicted felons and mentally ill individuals should not be able to possess guns does not mean that I believe in a flat-out weapon ban.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Grant said:
Such as?? But no one has ever said that, correct?

Don't get so hysterical. This too shall pass.
Click to expand...

Have you NOT be following along? Herrin and several others have constantly been labeling the legislation regarding (background checks) as Gun-Grabbing and a host of other hysteric terms. So, yes...as a matter of fact....they have. Next.....
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

dnsmith said:
Keeping and bearing firearms is not just a civil right; it is an inherent right affirmed by the 2nd amendment.If it is an inherent right, even if I don't like that right, I will enforce it to the hilt.
Click to expand...

No right is absolute. The Constitution just places stronger limitations of curtailment of any right that is fundamental.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Sorry Zyph...but you are wrong. I don't support banning handguns. I do, however, believe that there are some weapons such as military assault weapons that justifiably should be banned. That doesn't mean that I am in support of a flat out ban on guns. Your argument is akin to saying that if you don't believe people should have access to missle launchers and hand grenades, then you obviously support bans on all weapons.

And YES....I do believe that there are people out there who should not be able to own weapons...but because I believe that convicted felons and mentally ill individuals should not be able to possess guns does not mean that I believe in a flat-out weapon ban.
Click to expand...

No rifles sold to the general public have the same capabilities as those issued to military personnel. To obtain a select fire or full auto rifle requires an extensive BGC.
 
The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fi

disneydude said:
Sorry Zyph...but you are wrong. I don't support banning handguns. I do, however, believe that there are some weapons such as military assault weapons that justifiably should be banned.
Click to expand...

Military assault weapons already are banned for civilian ownership.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No right is absolute. The Constitution just places stronger limitations of curtailment of any right that is fundamental.
Click to expand...

No, the Constitution places limitations on GOVERNMENT, not rights.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

AlabamaPaul said:
No rifles sold to the general public have the same capabilities as those issued to military personnel.
Click to expand...

Anything issued to GI's should be available to the citizen.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Ikari said:
No, the Constitution places limitations on GOVERNMENT, not rights.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I wrote..." The Constitution just places strong limitations of curtailment of any right that is fundamental". Bottom line....no right is absolute.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Ikari said:
Anything issued to GI's should be available to the citizen.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but reality is what it is...
 
The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fi

disneydude said:
No right is absolute. The Constitution just places stronger limitations of curtailment of any right that is fundamental.
Click to expand...

The US Constitution doesn't place any limits. The only limits are what IS NOT in the Constitution, and what is not written in the Constitution is up to the states, not the Federal government. Background checks are not in the US Constitution, so the US Federal government cannot require background checks. The States, however, can do so if they desire, based on the will of the states voters.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Which is exactly what I wrote..." The Constitution just places strong limitations of curtailment of any right that is fundamental". Bottom line....no right is absolute.
Click to expand...

No right is absolute, all rights come with the one and only limitation that you may not infringe upon the rights of others in the exercise of your own.

But just because that limitation exists doesn't mean you have unlimited powers to limit the exercise of rights.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No right is absolute. The Constitution just places stronger limitations of curtailment of any right that is fundamental.
Click to expand...

That is why we punish people when they violate the rights of someone else. That however has nothing to do with their rights before such point. At that point in time their rights are ABSOLUTE. Many people like yourself don't seem to understand this concept though.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

AlabamaPaul said:
I don't disagree, but reality is what it is...
Click to expand...

Indeed, but that's my opinion on the matter and a true compromise would give a little something something to the gun supporters. What was going through Congress was not a compromise.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fi

The Man said:
The US Constitution doesn't place any limits. The only limits are what IS NOT in the Constitution, and what is not written in the Constitution is up to the states, not the Federal government. Background checks are not in the US Constitution, so the US Federal government cannot require background checks. The States, however, can do so if they desire, based on the will of the states voters.
Click to expand...

No, they can't. The second amendment applies to states and the federal government.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Tigger said:
It is my personal impression and belief that the bill which was defeated yesterday was a stepping stone towards those sorts of things.
Click to expand...

Which exists entirely in your own head since by your own admission there is no such thing in that bill. Such fears of things which are not there are normally filed under the category of paranoia.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Ikari said:
Indeed, but that's my opinion on the matter and a true compromise would give a little something something to the gun supporters. What was going through Congress was not a compromise.
Click to expand...

This whole situation was an exploitation of a tragedy. It was the President's, as well as other Dems, intent to move something through the Senate and have it go nowhere in the House to use in the 2014 election cycle. That's why the President was so angry last night. He just lost one of his aces n the hole...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Ikari said:
No right is absolute, all rights come with the one and only limitation that you may not infringe upon the rights of others in the exercise of your own.

But just because that limitation exists doesn't mean you have unlimited powers to limit the exercise of rights.
Click to expand...

Never claimed that anyone does have unlimited powers to limit the exercise of rights. In fact, I would say that right is very limited. However, what many of the gun nuts of this site and others fail to comprehend is that not every limitation is UnConstitutional. They seem to be of the mistaken belief that gun right are absolute.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Never claimed that anyone does have unlimited powers to limit the exercise of rights. In fact, I would say that right is very limited. However, what many of the gun nuts of this site and others fail to comprehend is that not every limitation is UnConstitutional. They seem to be of the mistaken belief that gun right are absolute.
Click to expand...

To keep and bear arms IS absolute. To wave my gun in other people's face, is not. That's where the restrictions come in.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Never claimed that anyone does have unlimited powers to limit the exercise of rights. In fact, I would say that right is very limited. However, what many of the gun nuts of this site and others fail to comprehend is that not every limitation is UnConstitutional. They seem to be of the mistaken belief that gun right are absolute.
Click to expand...

Gun rights are absolute as long as you are a responsible owner...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
That is why we punish people when they violate the rights of someone else. That however has nothing to do with their rights before such point. At that point in time their rights are ABSOLUTE. Many people like yourself don't seem to understand this concept though.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. Sorry. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. There is no right that is absolute. The Constitution does not make any right absolute. It only limits restrictions that the government can place...but the key word is "LIMIT". It doesn't ban all restrictions.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
You are simply wrong. Sorry. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. There is no right that is absolute. The Constitution does not make any right absolute.
Click to expand...

The Constitution in fact makes NO right at all. It merely lists a few of them.

disneydude said:
It only limits restrictions that the government can place...but the key word is "LIMIT". It doesn't ban all restrictions.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights is explicitly a "hands off" statement.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Ikari said:
To keep and bear arms IS absolute. To wave my gun in other people's face, is not. That's where the restrictions come in.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is not absolute. What it DOES require is that any limitation which the government seeks to impose must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, otherwise it would be stricken as unconstitutional. But you are 100% wrong if you claim it is absolute.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Wrong. It is not absolute. What it DOES require is that any limitation which the government seeks to impose must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, otherwise it would be stricken as unconstitutional. But you are 100% wrong if you claim it is absolute.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't understand the post...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Ikari said:
The Constitution in fact makes NO right at all. It merely lists a few of them.



The Bill of Rights is explicitly a "hands off" statement.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. There are hundreds of examples of limitations that are placed all over the bill of rights that are Constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom