• 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!

What Gun Control to Keep?

Does that not then point to a problem with our punishment system? Do you think a gun law can fix that by denying people who are willing to break the law with another law?

Now what does the constitution say about that? Does it exclude any citizen?

Your own words show the reason "fear". Does any section of the constitution read unless they are feared?

When we start making excuses to breech the constitution we are done. The chance of such a law working to keep guns out of peoples hands is zero. It also will not rehabilitate them.

PS There is no law that can do that.

Sure, there's a problem with our punishment system. It doesn't rehabilitate very eell, as you've mentioned. However, putting people in jail for a crime they've committed will keep those people from getting a gun and using it in a crime for as long as they are locked up.

If your point is that the Constitution doesn't allow us to withhold rights from felons once they've been released from prison, that's are different argument. Currently, though, it is the law that felons cannot own guns. Until that is changed, I hold that locking up felons who knowingly try to purchase a gun through legal or illegal means is the right thing to do.
 
Sure, there's a problem with our punishment system. It doesn't rehabilitate very eell, as you've mentioned. However, putting people in jail for a crime they've committed will keep those people from getting a gun and using it in a crime for as long as they are locked up.

If your point is that the Constitution doesn't allow us to withhold rights from felons once they've been released from prison, that's are different argument. Currently, though, it is the law that felons cannot own guns. Until that is changed, I hold that locking up felons who knowingly try to purchase a gun through legal or illegal means is the right thing to do.

That would be my argument and it is very valid.

So you would agree with slavery and go along with it? The principle is the same.

People in prison are denied access to firearms. It would be unconstitutional to remove the right. You have to remember this is not a right to commit crime and the firearms is not going to make anyone do that. The concept that denial will showdown or hinder is not supported by any evidence at all.

Your assumption that a felon who want to purchase an arm wants it to commit a crime is totally wrong. Felons don't buy crime guns at gun shops. Even if they did it is only one of countless ways of obtaining a firearm.
 
That would be my argument and it is very valid.

So you would agree with slavery and go along with it? The principle is the same.

People in prison are denied access to firearms. It would be unconstitutional to remove the right. You have to remember this is not a right to commit crime and the firearms is not going to make anyone do that. The concept that denial will showdown or hinder is not supported by any evidence at all.

Your assumption that a felon who want to purchase an arm wants it to commit a crime is totally wrong. Felons don't buy crime guns at gun shops. Even if they did it is only one of countless ways of obtaining a firearm.

Just a point I believe that it does at least stop them from buying one legally at a store, if they buy one any other way they have committed a crime and can face serious charges. You may believe that someone that committed and convicted of a violent crime should get those rights back the second they step out of prison but there are two things you are forgetting, one is that most are on Parole and have not finished paying their debt to society and that many of them repeat offend before finishing their time. No thanks, I will pass on that form of insanity. If they serve their time they should have to go to a court and argue their case before a judge to get back those rights. I might agree with non-violent convictions but not the violent ones.
Opps, almost forgot
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-background-checks-nics-failure/
 
Just a point I believe that it does at least stop them from buying one legally at a store, if they buy one any other way they have committed a crime and can face serious charges. You may believe that someone that committed and convicted of a violent crime should get those rights back the second they step out of prison but there are two things you are forgetting, one is that most are on Parole and have not finished paying their debt to society and that many of them repeat offend before finishing their time. No thanks, I will pass on that form of insanity. If they serve their time they should have to go to a court and argue their case before a judge to get back those rights. I might agree with non-violent convictions but not the violent ones.
Opps, almost forgot
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-background-checks-nics-failure/

Your argument is based on administrative action. In no way does it indicate a single crime was or will be prevented. To assume any were flies in the face of all known data on gun control interventions. An intervention is not a success because it prevents people from owning a firearm. Proof is required the firearms intended use is to commit a crime. We know from felons survey for the Carter administration by professors James Wright and Peter Rossi that that is not true.

The principle that if we cannot get you for the crime we can nail your for some administrative bull is not a very sound way of solving crime. Popular with cops and IRS though.

I agree if the sentence is not complete then denial is fine by me. It's a meaningless feel good thing. The problem is we sentence people to prison and when released they are rightfully citizens again. Their debt having been paid in full. Suspended sentences and parole are obvious an incomplete sentence.

The subject of repeats and recidivism is not easy to approach because it is an emotionally laden subject based on fear. Fact is denying these cases guns makes no difference to the outcome. The problem is our prison system and rehabilitation. I can think of a dozen emotional reasons, I cannot think of one based on logic. We are trying to solve the problem with a non-answer. It is impossible it can work as advertised. Put the money, manpower and resources to better more effective use.

Can you think of a reason we should distract from applying correct solutions by following bad solutions that cannot work?

There are also many reasons this type of thing should not be for life. And blanket denials are not what the constitution had in mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom