• 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!

Existing laws and reasonavble laws your thoughts?

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Many say we should enforce our current laws and that is all we need. I am curious and in order to improve knowledge wondered which current firearm laws that means and how enforcement will help reduce crime. I am assuming that is what enforcing those laws id going to do. I may be wrong. Please correct if that is the case.

This also brings attention to some of the "reasonable" laws that are suggested or alluded to which need to be discussed. I think a great deal of animosity is generated when people suggest laws but cannot give details of implementation, operation or purpose. I don't think that is unreasonable and any driver told he must pass a background check for anger issues and take a drug test before being allowed to drive would want to know the answer to those. I think the public are entitled to know such answers.

Are the promoters of such laws wiling to discus this in detail in order to reach some understanding?
 
I respect, but frankly don't understand, our national obsession with guns. Much as I don't get French people eating frog legs, I think it's weird.

Read an interesting book about the USA and guns a few years ago, called "Gunfight." Don't remember the author. Check it out. Enough in the book to infuriate both sides. Couple of interesting historic facts. One, no doubt troubling to control advocates, was that post revolution, some communities required gun ownership, in case the Brits tried to take us back. The second, was that many towns in the old west prohibited guns. They didn't want fresh off the trail, horny, thirsty cowboys carrying in their saloons. You had to check guns at the livery with your horse when you came to town. The gunfight at the OK corral was apparently about gun control, as Earp and friends wanted to take the Clantons guns, while the latter said they were leaving town. Ironically, Arizona, scene of the fight, now allows guns in bars. Go figure.
 
I respect, but frankly don't understand, our national obsession with guns. Much as I don't get French people eating frog legs, I think it's weird.

Read an interesting book about the USA and guns a few years ago, called "Gunfight." Don't remember the author. Check it out. Enough in the book to infuriate both sides. Couple of interesting historic facts. One, no doubt troubling to control advocates, was that post revolution, some communities required gun ownership, in case the Brits tried to take us back. The second, was that many towns in the old west prohibited guns. They didn't want fresh off the trail, horny, thirsty cowboys carrying in their saloons. You had to check guns at the livery with your horse when you came to town. The gunfight at the OK corral was apparently about gun control, as Earp and friends wanted to take the Clantons guns, while the latter said they were leaving town. Ironically, Arizona, scene of the fight, now allows guns in bars. Go figure.

so does Ohio, but since its invariably illegal to be drunk and carrying, you best not be drinking while packing. Most of those old west codes were designed to keep the official corruption and crime (the sheriff) safe from competition.
 
I respect, but frankly don't understand, our national obsession with guns. Much as I don't get French people eating frog legs, I think it's weird.

Read an interesting book about the USA and guns a few years ago, called "Gunfight." Don't remember the author. Check it out. Enough in the book to infuriate both sides. Couple of interesting historic facts. One, no doubt troubling to control advocates, was that post revolution, some communities required gun ownership, in case the Brits tried to take us back. The second, was that many towns in the old west prohibited guns. They didn't want fresh off the trail, horny, thirsty cowboys carrying in their saloons. You had to check guns at the livery with your horse when you came to town. The gunfight at the OK corral was apparently about gun control, as Earp and friends wanted to take the Clantons guns, while the latter said they were leaving town. Ironically, Arizona, scene of the fight, now allows guns in bars. Go figure.

Magic response. Perhaps what you see is a justified deep seated distrust of government that is still present to this day. There is no doubt that that distrust is written all over the constitution.

Is there something like middle ground? What is it?
If any law is to be reasonable what criteria must it meet?

Earp was afraid of being shot and that was his reason for introducing the rule. He wanted to be the only gun in town. Like all such rules the truth seldom ever surfaces.

Gunfight
The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America
Adam Winkler (Author, University of California, Los Angeles)

Just cannot make them happy? From a review of the book Do the red sections have any merit or are they propaganda?

But Mr. Winkler implies that gun control advocacy is similarly defined by extremists — by people who would like to “eliminate all privately owned firearms — or, at least, make the United States more like England, where handguns are illegal and all other guns are rare.” And in doing so Mr. Winkler ignores or plays down the many reasonable, centrist arguments made, for instance, by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

Middle-ground, common-sense ideas over the years have included measures like the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban; the closing of the so-called gun show loophole (which allows private sellers, who are not federally licensed, to sell guns without having to conduct a background check — sales that reportedly account for about 40 percent of all gun purchases); and fixing gaps in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System regarding individuals with mental illness, drug abuse and domestic violence records.

Middle ground is something both sides agree on. Is that true?
Reasonable means there is some factual reason in support. Is that true
Common sense is the obvious and really has no right or wrong but here is designed to use the propaganda technique of bandwagoning

Can anyone provide some evidence for discussion of the legitimacy of these claimed measures?
 
Last edited:
Magic response. Perhaps what you see is a justified deep seated distrust of government that is still present to this day. There is no doubt that that distrust is written all over the constitution.

Is there something like middle ground? What is it?
If any law is to be reasonable what criteria must it meet?

Earp was afraid of being shot and that was his reason for introducing the rule. He wanted to be the only gun in town. Like all such rules the truth seldom ever surfaces.

Gunfight
The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America
Adam Winkler (Author, University of California, Los Angeles)

Just cannot make them happy? From a review of the book Do the red sections have any merit or are they propaganda?

But Mr. Winkler implies that gun control advocacy is similarly defined by extremists — by people who would like to “eliminate all privately owned firearms — or, at least, make the United States more like England, where handguns are illegal and all other guns are rare.” And in doing so Mr. Winkler ignores or plays down the many reasonable, centrist arguments made, for instance, by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

Middle-ground, common-sense ideas over the years have included measures like the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban; the closing of the so-called gun show loophole (which allows private sellers, who are not federally licensed, to sell guns without having to conduct a background check — sales that reportedly account for about 40 percent of all gun purchases); and fixing gaps in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System regarding individuals with mental illness, drug abuse and domestic violence records.

Middle ground is something both sides agree on. Is that true?
Reasonable means there is some factual reason in support. Is that true
Common sense is the obvious and really has no right or wrong but here is designed to use the propaganda technique of bandwagoning

Can anyone provide some evidence for discussion of the legitimacy of these claimed measures?

I fail to see bans on guns as "moderate positions". Moderate positions on gun control would be admitting that the Federal government's power is dishonest but established by the Court and is now accepted as part of the jurisprudential fabric. Moderate gun control would be drivers licenses marked with buy or no buy and sellers of privately owned firearms would have to check the DL before selling
 
I fail to see bans on guns as "moderate positions". Moderate positions on gun control would be admitting that the Federal government's power is dishonest but established by the Court and is now accepted as part of the jurisprudential fabric. Moderate gun control would be drivers licenses marked with buy or no buy and sellers of privately owned firearms would have to check the DL before selling

While they might be moderate do they pass the reasonable test? I do not think they pass common ground.
 
While they might be moderate do they pass the reasonable test? I do not think they pass common ground.

Why do you make reasonableness your standard for firearms laws? The constitutional standard is whether a law infringes the right to keep and bear arms. Certain types of restrictions on firearms--e.g. the exclusion of felons and insane people from the right, or bans on carrying firearms into courthouses, or on carrying them concealed with criminal intent--do not infringe the Second Amendment right because they were widely recognized by 1791 as not being part of that right. I think it is new categories of restrictions that the Supreme Court is likely to view as unconstitutional infringements.
 
Why do you make reasonableness your standard for firearms laws?

Because reasonable means they have a reason that is valid for existence does it not? I'm not sure what reasonable means to you or gun control which is why I defined what I thought it was.

The constitutional standard is whether a law infringes the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't believe gun control ever discusses the constitutional issue as gun control does not appear to think it exists. As for your version I could and will argue that the constitution makes no provision to deprive anybody anywhere of a right. It would be constitutional to prevent the right being exercised in certain justified conditions. It is the justification which is vital ie reason.

Certain types of restrictions on firearms--e.g. the exclusion of felons and insane people from the right,

Care to explain where a blanket exclusion without due process is constitutional. Are you aware that felons are locked up serving their sentence. Is any part of that sentence enforceable for life without due process? ie What do we call a released felon which has served the full sentence mandated by the court? I believe mental illness is the only constitution deprivation that has due process currently. Is due process not a reasonable requirement?

or bans on carrying firearms into courthouses, or on carrying them concealed with criminal intent--do not infringe the Second Amendment right because they were widely recognized by 1791 as not being part of that right. I think it is new categories of restrictions that the Supreme Court is likely to view as unconstitutional infringements.

Does the supreme court determine what is constitutional that cannot be challenged? Is the constitution part of law that the supreme court has control of? Who does the supreme court answer to? Government or the people? Who's laws are the constitution?

You may well be right on what government views as setting some standard that can be rammed down citizens throats and they will not object. That does not make it constitutional. I'm not sure but the wording of the 2A is pretty emphatic giving little reason to be misunderstood. I'm open to being surprised and corrected.
 
Care to explain where a blanket exclusion without due process is constitutional.

Justice Scalia noted in Heller that like most rights, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. Neither is the First Amendment freedom of speech, which very few people even in 1791 thought to include defamation. Excluding certain acts from the protection of the Second Amendment no more involves due process than does excluding defamation from the protection of the First Amendment.

Is due process not a reasonable requirement?

Please tell us where the Supreme Court has ever suggested that state laws which discriminate against felons, e.g. by disenfranchising them, or by denying them the right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional.
 
Justice Scalia noted in Heller that like most rights, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. Neither is the First Amendment freedom of speech, which very few people even in 1791 thought to include defamation. Excluding certain acts from the protection of the Second Amendment no more involves due process than does excluding defamation from the protection of the First Amendment.

Thank you for your responses and this is working out very nicely to show the weaknesses of many of the arguments both for and against. I am looking first of all for validity or reason for any law. I don't think anyone wants bad laws that serve no useful purpose or simply waste public funding.

Where does power rest? In the supreme court? In government? Do you know what a republic is? I think you should look it up.

You are trying to extend a valid claim to mean what you want it to. Not being absolute does not mean one can attach all sort of stuff to that. The 2A is bounded by people, arms, keep and bear and anything else is an infringement or not covered. So unless the non absolute refers to those words it is an infringement or not applicable. There is no speech law that binds one from defamation or shouting out any words one likes. There are other laws that cover those events. Which words or sounds is one prohibited from speaking? Are released and paid up "felons" people. A simple yes or no will suffice. If they are a public danger government has no right to endanger the public by releasing them.

Please tell us where the Supreme Court has ever suggested that state laws which discriminate against felons, e.g. by disenfranchising them, or by denying them the right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional.

What do you think those laws are? I assume you are aware of the wording of the 2A and can apply that wording as well as any judge. Use a dictionary if not sure. Let me know what your verdict is and if it was difficult to determine. Your attempt to continue despite my efforts to show the false notion of the supremacy of the court is puzzling. In laws and legal matters pertaining to those laws yes but all subject to review and power of authority of the people. Something government would like us to forget.

You did not answer my question and that was on purpose. Answer them now thank you. That may help you understand better and let me know you have read and comprehended the purpose of asking them. Not much point in pursuing that until we have some understanding of the points made.
 
I respect, but frankly don't understand, our national obsession with guns. Much as I don't get French people eating frog legs, I think it's weird.
What is wrong with frog's legs? Tastes like chicken. Snails, now that IS weird, but not bad. Ever had rattle snake, alligator? Ever walk the markets in Bangkok?
Now on the matter at hand. The biggest problem is that demonstrably so, gun right opponents have shown that they would not be completely satisfied with anything short of all guns magically disappearing which of course will not happen. As a result the distrust because they would take a yard given an inch is very real and warranted.
 
What is wrong with frog's legs? Tastes like chicken. Snails, now that IS weird, but not bad. Ever had rattle snake, alligator? Ever walk the markets in Bangkok?
Now on the matter at hand. The biggest problem is that demonstrably so, gun right opponents have shown that they would not be completely satisfied with anything short of all guns magically disappearing which of course will not happen. As a result the distrust because they would take a yard given an inch is very real and warranted.

I'm not sure if you were being politically correct but with knowledge comes understanding.

First gun control for the public is hardly ever an informed choice, it is an instilled (indoctrinate) obsession. A good analogy would be like a person who fears heights or spiders. It is quite obvious that the fear of spiders is not going to be satisfied or cured by banning one species of spider. Or the fear of heights relieved by banning buildings above a certain height. There is no way gun control can ever be satisfied because even after all law-abiding citizens guns have been removed criminals these idiots removed attention from will still be there.

Gun control is a criminal aid organisation making the country a safe workplace.

As for snails if it were not for the garlic they normally come with nobody would bother ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom