• 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!

Ammunition Bill Signed into Law

It's fun seeing a conservative from Ohio get all worked up about an ammunition law in California. I thought conservatives were all for states' rights? Oh wait ...
This is willfull ignorance.
Nowhere in the 'states rights' position is there an argument for states having the right to violate the US Constitution.
 
Local LEOs said it helps in crime solving, according to linked article.

You know what would help LEO to solve crimes? Cameras everywhere. If they can just search whatever they want whenever they want. I mean, helping LEO solve crime in and of itself isn't legitimate reason to infringe upon the rights of the individual.
 
It's fun seeing a conservative from Ohio get all worked up about an ammunition law in California. I thought conservatives were all for states' rights? Oh wait ...

There is a lot to be done on the State side. Just because someone says they believe in moving more power to the States than the federal government doesn't mean that they support government tyranny and treason. Suggesting that is nothing but an intellectually weak ploy to deflect away from the questions.
 
It's fun seeing a conservative from Ohio get all worked up about an ammunition law in California. I thought conservatives were all for states' rights? Oh wait ...

Hmm, looks like someones trying to win an oscar in the "Best obtuse act" category.

People are in favor of states rights, as they are outlined in the constitution. Namely, the federal government only can extend its reach to the things the constitution states is under their umbrella, and beyond that is the states. However, the Constitution states which rights government, universally, can not touch....assembly, search and siezure, bare arms, etc. As such, being upset with a state trying to enact a law that potentially violates the 2nd amendment is not outside of the scope of "states' rights" but is actually directly in line with the philosophy as that philosophy is rooted within the constitution and from that same foundation we have the understanding that states should not be passing laws that violate the constitution, which those complaining about this generally feel.

Sorry, I hope I didn't ruin your oscar bid.
 
Ah the evasions-so typical

What evasion? I answered your question. Answer was no.



I believe I explained to you why/how there is a difference here.
Did you not understand?

You did? Since my response that you quoted was a response to someone else's question, I don't know what you're talking about. Besides, there's no difference. You register to buy a gun, I'll register to vote.



This is willfull ignorance.
Nowhere in the 'states rights' position is there an argument for states having the right to violate the US Constitution.

You know what would help LEO to solve crimes? Cameras everywhere. If they can just search whatever they want whenever they want. I mean, helping LEO solve crime in and of itself isn't legitimate reason to infringe upon the rights of the individual.


I don't have a problem with CCTV, but some libs do. You're next statement is a direct violation of the 4th amendment (but that didn't stop the gov't under the Bush regime, see sneak and peek searches in Patriot Act), who says you have the right to buy ammo without showing ID? I don't see that anywhere. You gotta show ID to buy lots of stuff. You don't want to show ID, don't buy the stuff.



There is a lot to be done on the State side. Just because someone says they believe in moving more power to the States than the federal government doesn't mean that they support government tyranny and treason. Suggesting that is nothing but an intellectually weak ploy to deflect away from the questions.

Suggesting that something you don't like is tyranny and treason is intellectually weak.
 
Hmm, looks like someones trying to win an oscar in the "Best obtuse act" category.

People are in favor of states rights, as they are outlined in the constitution. Namely, the federal government only can extend its reach to the things the constitution states is under their umbrella, and beyond that is the states. However, the Constitution states which rights government, universally, can not touch....assembly, search and siezure, bare arms, etc. As such, being upset with a state trying to enact a law that potentially violates the 2nd amendment is not outside of the scope of "states' rights" but is actually directly in line with the philosophy as that philosophy is rooted within the constitution and from that same foundation we have the understanding that states should not be passing laws that violate the constitution, which those complaining about this generally feel.

Sorry, I hope I didn't ruin your oscar bid.


That was lame. What's the point of insulting me? I ain't the dramaqueen ... :rofl
 
You did? Since my response that you quoted was a response to someone else's question, I don't know what you're talking about. Besides, there's no difference. You register to buy a gun, I'll register to vote.
I see you did -not- see my explanation. That's OK.
Here you go:

YOU said:

Originally Posted by jackalope
You must register to vote to exercise your right to vote, so registration is not an infringement.

I responded:

I said:

Further, registering people who buy ammunition is no different than registering people that buy guns. This is a precondition to the exercise of the right that is not inherent to the right itself, and therefore an infringement.

Registration determines where the person should cast his ballot and, when he attemps to cast a ballot, if said person is in the right place to cast that ballot; as both of those things are a necessary component of the right to vote, registration IS a a precondition inherent to that right - which is why registration is not an infringement.

The same is -not- true for guns.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...on-bill-signed-into-law-2.html#post1058303750
 
This is willfull ignorance.
Nowhere in the 'states rights' position is there an argument for states having the right to violate the US Constitution.
I believe state constitutions usually also have a right to bear arms.
 
That was lame. What's the point of insulting me? I ain't the dramaqueen ... :rofl

Never said you were a drama queen, I was saying you were acting obtuse.

Behind your extremely hyper partisan exterior that makes the bias of most of your posts evident, you seem reasonably intelligent. As such, I had few doubts that you knew damn well that a "states rights" person isn't outside of the norm in disagreeing with a state passing a law they feel violates the constitution. This of course then leads to the obvious understanding that you were just acting obtuse to make a typical hyper partisan attack comment rather than actually have an intelligent conversation with actual facts. I figured I'd at least humor you and play along, and explain to you why your idioticly hyper partisan comment was absolutely incorrect and based in anything but fact.

You weren't a drama queen at all, you were just trying to spew out mindlessly hyper partisan attack garbage by acting obtuse about the view of "states rights"
 
Last edited:
When I was in high school about a gazzilion years ago, I found a book about lying with statistics, a small hard bound book no more then 60 pages. I thumbed through it and got a glimpse of how lying with stats affects policy and in this case, our freedom.

One of the stats that is widely accepted as being true is the terrible number of children that are killed with guns. But the study never mentions that those children are up to age 24! The highest percentage of hand gun violence is done between the ages of 18 to 24 and most of that violence is done within their own age group and demographics. Yet when we hear children, we think Kindergarden and yet gun violence with children is vary rare, not unheard of but rare.

The other assumed stat is that libs are against gun owndership and cons are not. That is only marginally true as the difference between both is only a single diget percentage wise.

The other stat that is never mentioned is the states that have relaxed rules against carrying a concieled weapon. We'll hear about how many are killed because of relaxed rules, but we won't hear about the reduction of violent crime. While it is true murders of passion increase because of the availabilty of guns, it is also true that violent crime overall decreases.

Lying with stats when it comes to partisan politics is a time honored tradition on both sides of issues.

.
 
Several do, several do not.
Only several? Remember during ratification that the 2nd Amendment was an amendment? The requirement for an amendment came back from state constitutional conventions. But I can't say how many, maybe you know.
 
I don't have a problem with CCTV, but some libs do. You're next statement is a direct violation of the 4th amendment (but that didn't stop the gov't under the Bush regime, see sneak and peek searches in Patriot Act), who says you have the right to buy ammo without showing ID? I don't see that anywhere. You gotta show ID to buy lots of stuff. You don't want to show ID, don't buy the stuff.

Sins of the past do not excuse sins of the present. Yes, the Patriot Act went too far, and most (if not all) should be rescinded. But just because the government acted improperly in the past doesn't mean it gets to continue on that path in the future. This is more about showing an ID to buy it. This is about fingerprinting and databasing.

How about every time you buy a 12 pack, you're fingerprinted, the data is sent to the police, and your habits and location and what you bought is databased? But you using hyperbole to suggest that it is nothing more than showing an ID is intellectually weak again. Please try to debate better.

Suggesting that something you don't like is tyranny and treason is intellectually weak.

Awww, you so wanted to turn it around, but you can't. You have nothing to back up your claim. I had your hyperbole and deflect. I also have the right to secure my person, papers, and property against unreasonable search and seizure. Taking my finger prints and databasing my information is definitely a violation of that. Which is an act of tyranny and treason.

What do you have to back up your claim? Anything? Or were you just trying to be cute and failed?
 
I see you did -not- see my explanation. That's OK.
Here you go:

YOU said:



I responded:

I said:



Registration determines where the person should cast his ballot and, when he attemps to cast a ballot, if said person is in the right place to cast that ballot; as both of those things are a necessary component of the right to vote, registration IS a a precondition inherent to that right - which is why registration is not an infringement.

The same is -not- true for guns.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...on-bill-signed-into-law-2.html#post1058303750


I answered that. Registration to buy ammunition is not an infringement on the exercise of a right. Registration is required to exercise many rights. I gave the example of voting. TOJ gave a smart answer about the right to vote not actually being written in the constitution, that was interesting. However, the fact of needing to register doesn't infringe on that right. It also is not an unconstitutional infringement to require registration to own guns. The argument, on its face, is meritless. There are many rights which require registration to exercise. Besides, there is no constitutional right to buy ammunition in the Constitution. Many in the 1700s just made there own ;).
 
Never said you were a drama queen, I was saying you were acting obtuse.

Behind your extremely hyper partisan exterior that makes the bias of most of your posts evident, you seem reasonably intelligent. As such, I had few doubts that you knew damn well that a "states rights" person isn't outside of the norm in disagreeing with a state passing a law they feel violates the constitution. This of course then leads to the obvious understanding that you were just acting obtuse to make a typical hyper partisan attack comment rather than actually have an intelligent conversation with actual facts. I figured I'd at least humor you and play along, and explain to you why your idioticly hyper partisan comment was absolutely incorrect and based in anything but fact.

You weren't a drama queen at all, you were just trying to spew out mindlessly hyper partisan attack garbage by acting obtuse about the view of "states rights"


Your characterization of my posts as hyperpartisan is a reflection on you.
 
Sins of the past do not excuse sins of the present. Yes, the Patriot Act went too far, and most (if not all) should be rescinded. But just because the government acted improperly in the past doesn't mean it gets to continue on that path in the future. This is more about showing an ID to buy it. This is about fingerprinting and databasing.

How about every time you buy a 12 pack, you're fingerprinted, the data is sent to the police, and your habits and location and what you bought is databased? But you using hyperbole to suggest that it is nothing more than showing an ID is intellectually weak again. Please try to debate better.


The Patriot Act went to far, and so did your statement saying well then the gov't should be able to search whenever you want. CCTV isn't unconstitutional, whenever you want searches are.

Fingerprints for 12-packs is silly. Fingerprints for ammo is fine with me, I don't care if CA wants to pass that law.


Awww, you so wanted to turn it around, but you can't. You have nothing to back up your claim. I had your hyperbole and deflect. I also have the right to secure my person, papers, and property against unreasonable search and seizure. Taking my finger prints and databasing my information is definitely a violation of that. Which is an act of tyranny and treason.

What do you have to back up your claim? Anything? Or were you just trying to be cute and failed?



The hyperbole existed in your statement characterizing the passage of an ammunition law as tyranny and treason. Which claim do you want me to back up? Why don't you not be cute and just ask a straight question?
 
Taking my finger prints and databasing my information is definitely a violation of that. Which is an act of tyranny and treason.

Sorry to jump in at this juncture, but you are indeed in a tyrannical system today and if you do not adhere to it, you can risk fines, even imprisonment.

That is your 1040 form, where private information you wouldn't even consider giving to most of your friends or relatives we give to the government. From where we live and work, our salary, our investments, spouse, our children, our losses and gains, what other taxes we pay, etc.

The data base is already there. The penalties are real. The life altering affects of inaccurate or non reporting can be felt for years.

I call that totalitarian.
 
I answered that.
I did not see the post. My apologies.

Registration to buy ammunition is not an infringement on the exercise of a right. Registration is required to exercise many rights. I gave the example of voting.
Yes.... and I then explained how your registration to vote example doesnt translate to the right to arms -- registration is an inherent part of the right to vote; the same cannot be said for the right to keep and bear arms.

Did you have a response to that?

However, the fact of needing to register doesn't infringe on that right. It also is not an unconstitutional infringement to require registration to own guns.
Gun/ammo registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to that right, and therefore it IS an infringement.

There are many rights which require registration to exercise.
You gave one example, one where the registration in question was an inherent part of the right in question, and therefore not an infringement.
Do you have other examples?

Besides, there is no constitutional right to buy ammunition in the Constitution.
Redundant much?:mrgreen:
Ammunition is every bit as much a part of the right to arms as words are a part of free speech.
 
The Patriot Act went to far, and so did your statement saying well then the gov't should be able to search whenever you want. CCTV isn't unconstitutional, whenever you want searches are.

Fingerprints for 12-packs is silly. Fingerprints for ammo is fine with me, I don't care if CA wants to pass that law.

CCTV isn't fine, not if the government is putting it up to monitor too much. I don't like it, I'd always vote against it. The fingerprinting for a 12 pack isn't silly. It's an analogy using something you'd probably have more contact with than ammunition. You merely want to label it as such to avoid debate. Good job. :roll:

The hyperbole existed in your statement characterizing the passage of an ammunition law as tyranny and treason. Which claim do you want me to back up? Why don't you not be cute and just ask a straight question?

I asked straight questions, you deflect and dodge. "It's silly" and crap like that. Remember that one? It's right above. I already told you why it was treason as it's against the second and fourth amendment. Violating the rights of the individual is an act of tyranny and treason.

The claim I wanted you to back up (please read, it's very clear from the posts) was "Suggesting that something you don't like is tyranny and treason is intellectually weak." I can't believe you didn't understand that. As it was quoted and I had commented on it, and the prove it part was in the same paragraph. But whatever.

You didn't address violations of the fourth, you merely dismissed analogy; and you have the gall to tell me to ask straight questions. How about an intellectually honest answer out of you?
 
Sorry to jump in at this juncture, but you are indeed in a tyrannical system today and if you do not adhere to it, you can risk fines, even imprisonment.

That is your 1040 form, where private information you wouldn't even consider giving to most of your friends or relatives we give to the government. From where we live and work, our salary, our investments, spouse, our children, our losses and gains, what other taxes we pay, etc.

The data base is already there. The penalties are real. The life altering affects of inaccurate or non reporting can be felt for years.

I call that totalitarian.

I understand there are already problems. I'd like to address the problems we currently have. However, I don't think it behooves us to make the situation worse.
 
I answered that. Registration to buy ammunition is not an infringement on the exercise of a right. Registration is required to exercise many rights. I gave the example of voting.

In the case of voting, registration is intrinsic to ensuring the process is not a fraud... the same is not true of purchasing firearms. In the first case it is part of the process to ensure each vote is counted etc, in the 2nd it is an unnecessary infringement.

TOJ gave a smart answer about the right to vote not actually being written in the constitution, that was interesting..

It is in the constitution

However, the fact of needing to register doesn't infringe on that right.

You cannot ensure fair and legitimate voting without registration...requiring registration is part of protection of that right. The 2nd amendment is different, it does not require registration for your right to obtain and keep arms to be protected.

Besides, there is no constitutional right to buy ammunition in the Constitution. Many in the 1700s just made there own ;).

The constitution doesn't grant rights, so what's your point. And besides, the 2nd says "to bear arms..." a gun needs ammo to be effective, it is part and parcel--the ammo + the weapon = the armament. Otherwise its just a club.
 
In the case of voting, registration is intrinsic to ensuring the process is not a fraud... the same is not true of purchasing firearms. In the first case it is part of the process to ensure each vote is counted etc, in the 2nd it is an unnecessary infringement.
Its called a 'compelling state interest', and it is part of the strict scrutiny standard.

Essentially, the right to legitimate and fair voting cannot be exercised without effective voter registration, and therefore, the requirement to register to vote - a precondition to the exercise of the right - does not infringe the right to vote.

The same cannot be argued for the right to arms, and so registration related to that right -would- be an infringement.
 
Last edited:
Its called a 'compelling state interest', and it is part of the strict scrutiny standard.

Essentially, the right to legitimate and fair voting cannot be exercised without effective voter registration, and therefore, the requirement to register to vote - a precondition to the exercise of the right - does not infringe the right to vote.

The same cannot be argued for the right to arms, and so registration related to that right -would- be an infringement.

yep. I personally call it "common sense."

There is more of a compelling interest for the people to ensure votes are counted correctly.
 
yep. I personally call it "common sense"
I'm REALLY looking forward to his response.
:cool:

There is more of a compelling interest for the people to ensure votes are counted correctly.
Its not just compelling -- it is absolutely necessary, if the right to vote is to mean anything.

Note too that registration makes sure you are voting in the right place, another essential part of the right to vote.
 
Last edited:
How bout also applying this crap to militairy and police ammo? It would be interesting to see where Mexico is getting its arms/bullets via following microstamping. Average gun buyers who then sell their own legal stuff across the border? Some corrupt police seizure depo? Or contractors who supply the military with its munitions and a box "falls off" the truck.
 
Back
Top Bottom