• 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!

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

Tettsuo said:
You're reaching.

Guns are weapons. That's their main function. Cars are transportation first and foremost. Homes are shelters first and foremost. There's no comparison.
Click to expand...
Wrong, guns are tools. Defense tool, hunting tool, recreation tool.
 
Tettsuo said:
You're reaching.

Guns are weapons. That's their main function. Cars are transportation first and foremost. Homes are shelters first and foremost. There's no comparison.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant as to their main function. It's how they can be used or are used and the result which is the issue.
 
Deuce said:
Personal observations are the worst way to try to analyze statistical issues. Gun homicides are about twice as common as someone under 21 being killed in a drinking-related incident.
Click to expand...

Proof? Link? Or gut feeling?
 
Tettsuo said:
You're reaching.

Guns are weapons. That's their main function. Cars are transportation first and foremost. Homes are shelters first and foremost. There's no comparison.
Click to expand...

Whether or not an objectives "main function" is to kind of irrelevant to whether or not someone is killed by something. Is someone whose ran over by a drunk driver somehow less dead than someone shot with a gun or cut with a knife?

And if literal "intent" of the item, in so much as you're suggesting "intent" here based on it's primary purpose sans any context, is justification for actoin against it then you're obviously also a proponent for variations on prohibition since the "main function" of alcohol is poisoning.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
"We feel like you are dangerous so you will stay in jail past your term."


Laws don't work like that sooooo...
Click to expand...

Yeah they do.

"We feel like you are dangerous so you will not be able to own a gun"

In both cases a person is being deprived of a right due to an action they taken and an assumption of potential future action they may take. The primary difference is one of those rights you're fine with taking away and the other you're not.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Wrong, guns are tools. Defense tool, hunting tool, recreation tool.
Click to expand...

No, they are use to cause harm. That's their purpose. Bullets are used to enter and destroy flesh. The weapon can be used as a tool for defense or hunting or recreation, but the purpose of it is to cause harm to another living thing.
 
Tettsuo said:
No, they are use to cause harm. That's their purpose. Bullets are used to enter and destroy flesh. The weapon can be used as a tool for defense or hunting or recreation, but the purpose of it is to cause harm to another living thing.
Click to expand...
Bottle up some of your liberal tears so I can lube my AR15s.
 
Tettsuo said:
No, they are use to cause harm. That's their purpose. Bullets are used to enter and destroy flesh. The weapon can be used as a tool for defense or hunting or recreation, but the purpose of it is to cause harm to another living thing.
Click to expand...

And sometimes causing that kind of harm is a good thing. The key factor is intent, not harm.
 
Zyphlin said:
Whether or not an objectives "main function" is to kind of irrelevant to whether or not someone is killed by something. Is someone whose ran over by a drunk driver somehow less dead than someone shot with a gun or cut with a knife?

And if literal "intent" of the item, in so much as you're suggesting "intent" here based on it's primary purpose sans any context, is justification for actoin against it then you're obviously also a proponent for variations on prohibition since the "main function" of alcohol is poisoning.
Click to expand...

Alcohol's main function is not poisoning, it's entertainment.

The main function of an item is very important as to whether or not it should be regulated. A nuclear bomb's main function is to kill large numbers of people, but you could use it as defense against your government's overreach. Just because you want to use it as such doesn't mean we should allow you to have it for the purpose you claim.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Bottle up some of your liberal tears so I can lube my AR15s.
Click to expand...

Lube up your what? Exactly what are you Conservatives calling AR15s nowadays?
 
Lutherf said:
And sometimes causing that kind of harm is a good thing. The key factor is intent, not harm.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree that there are times violence is necessary to defend oneself and/or family. But you use a gun to cause harm in the name of defense. Guns, by their very nature, is offense.
 
Ockham said:
They call them AR15's.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot you prudish Conservatives can't get a joke if it's sexual in context. My bad.

Violence and fear on the other hand... those you understand.
 
Tettsuo said:
I do not disagree that there are times violence is necessary to defend oneself and/or family. But you use a gun to cause harm in the name of defense. Guns, by their very nature, is offense.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha, I tell ya. The liberals have an answer for everything. 10K killed in DUI accidents in 2012 but you are worried about the few killed by guns.
 
Tettsuo said:
I do not disagree that there are times violence is necessary to defend oneself and/or family. But you use a gun to cause harm in the name of defense. Guns, by their very nature, is offense.
Click to expand...

The implement is neutral. You can't reasonably attribute intent to an inanimate object.
 
Tettsuo said:
Sorry, forgot you prudish Conservatives can't get a joke if it's sexual in context. My bad.

Violence on the other hand... that you understand.
Click to expand...

I am not the subject of discussion. Perhaps you should practice posting jokes in order to get better at it.
 
Tettsuo said:
Alcohol's main function is not poisoning, it's entertainment.

The main function of an item is very important as to whether or not it should be regulated. A nuclear bomb's main function is to kill large numbers of people, but you could use it as defense against your government's overreach. Just because you want to use it as such doesn't mean we should allow you to have it for the purpose you claim.
Click to expand...
Oh, you a scientist too? You CAN drink alcohol. But Alcohol has many many more uses.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Oh, you a scientist too? You CAN drink alcohol. But Alcohol has many many more uses.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the millions of seniors on Warfarin as a blood thinner .... aka Rat Poison.
 
a solid decision supported by both the Constitution and a long history of American jurisprudence giving the thumbs up to reasonable regulation and legislation in this area.

Of course, some will say these are INFRINGEMENTS - but it just goes to show you how ridiculous that argument is.
 
Tettsuo said:
Alcohol's main function is not poisoning, it's entertainment.
Click to expand...

You know what, reading back I was wrong. I thought I read you saying their main function is to kill. Reading back I see that you stated their main function is as a weapon. As such, the analogy I suggested doesn't work. My mistake with regards to reading what you wrote.
 
danarhea said:
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

actually the 5 probably were right if he bought the gun purely for his uncle and it was not a gift. It was a straw purchase. Now I don't believe the federal government has the proper power to make such a law but I believe that the law as written, prohibits this sort of straw purchase. The Law should be changed to only punish transfers to prohibited persons though
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I somewhat agree with you, here is the actual language used on form 4473:



Technically, you are acquiring the firearm for yourself, but for the purpose of gifting it to another in the very near future. ;)
Click to expand...

that is the correct interpretation of the law

If I buy a gun with the intent of giving it to say my brother I am the actual purchaser. If I tell my brother I am going to Joe's Gun warehouse to pick up a new Glock and he gives me 500 and says gets one too, that is a straw purchase and I am not the actual buyer of the gun and it is a violation (perjury) of the law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom