• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%

  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%

  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone posting on this thread had a loaded handgun pointed at them by someone that had the intention to shoot you with it?
If you have had this experience then I'll value your opinion much higher than most of the others.
 
Gipper said:
Among all stupid liberal stances, gun control is among the worst. Give everyone, upon a successful background check, a firearm if they want.
Click to expand...

What is the point of these background checks? Under what circumstances is the state allowed to deny someone their rights under the second amendment? And what does the constitution say about this denial? If the constitution doesn't cover this, why is legislation allowed to trump constitutional rights?
 
Andalublue said:
What is the point of these background checks? Under what circumstances is the state allowed to deny someone their rights under the second amendment?...
Click to expand...

if you have committed a felony and a judge has not reinstituted your right to possess firearms, or if you have been institutionalized by a judge.

the background check is to make sure you don't fall under one of these two categories.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Wisconsin just passed its open carry law and we've already seen one instance where vigilante justice was carried out in a grocery store. In a nutshell, two robbers entered the store, one was armed and the other was not. A man carrying a gun shot the armed robber and stopped it from happening.

Now don't get me wrong, hooray for the trigger happy customer. However, lets say he missed and shot the innocent bystander behind the robber. I know its a serious stretch here, but he WAS in a grocery opening fire. I just don't get the whole argument that "the more guns the better" (hocks a loogey ina spitoon)
Click to expand...
Let's say you stop calling this guy a "trigger happy" customer, because you don't know that.
 
Thunder said:
if you have committed a felony and a judge has not reinstituted your right to possess firearms, or if you have been institutionalized by a judge.

the background check is to make sure you don't fall under one of these two categories.
Click to expand...

If you served your time behind bars you should not be denied your constitutional rights. If you are institutionalized by a judge then wouldn't that mean you are in a institution?As far as I know they don't allow you to freely roam.
 
I hate when the right answer is not there.

It's a state issue.

But when Guns cross state lines, it's a federal issue.

Waiting period. Background checks.

Carry laws should be stricter. But that is a local issue.
 
jamesrage said:
If you served your time behind bars you should not be denied your constitutional rights....
Click to expand...

many folks in this country believe that if you have a history of criminal activity, your right to own a firearm should be suspended..until you can prove that you are no longer a danger to society.

I agree with this stand.
 
hazlnut said:
I hate when the right answer is not there.

It's a state issue.

But when Guns cross state lines, it's a federal issue.

Waiting period. Background checks.

Carry laws should be stricter. But that is a local issue.
Click to expand...

Its a constitutional right.So the state has absolutely no business messing with the second amendment, just like states have no business messing with all your other constitutional rights too.
 
Thunder said:
many folks in this country believe that if you have a history of criminal activity, your right to own a firearm should be suspended..until you can prove that you are no longer a danger to society.

I agree with this stand.
Click to expand...

If you still a danger to society then you should not be released period.
 
Jerry said:
Only in gun-free zones.
Click to expand...

There is some misinformation about concealed carry in Arizona. Yes, concealed carry is an option for anyone who legally owns a gun. No CCW required. However, you knew that was coming, you may not carry concealed in a school zone. Arizona considers day cares to be schools as well as K-12 grade school. Try to drive anywhere near your home or work and not drive through a school zone. In Arizona, if you get pulled over for: failing to stop at a light or sign; speeding; or driving while Mexican, any infraction and you have a conceal weapon you can be in deep caca. If you have a CCW the law permits you to carry in a school zone - not in a school, however.

In addition most, maybe all, tribal lands do not permit you to have a gun in the car unless it is locked in a case, in the trunk. A CCW will not help you there. So if your driving on the rez or going to a casino you'd be wise to lock it in the trunk BEFORE you reach tribal land. I know a guy who lost his gun to a tribe because in the casino parking lot he took his concealed gun off and locked it in the trunk. Bust by a video cam.

So for the most part concealed carry is permitted, with restrictions. Having a CCW allows to avoid some of those restrictions.

To date the concealed carry for legal gun owners law has not been a problem. People said it would be. People whined and moaned that everyone was going to die in shoot outs, but it hasn't happened at all. Those people have been proven wrong.
 
Thunder said:
if you have committed a felony and a judge has not reinstituted your right to possess firearms, or if you have been institutionalized by a judge.

the background check is to make sure you don't fall under one of these two categories.
Click to expand...

But where does the constitution say that convicted felons (who have obviously served out their sentence, if they're free) have no second amendment rights? Or indeed the 'institutionalized'? Why are these classes of people denied the right to self-defence? Who decided to place limits on constitutional rights?

Strangely, I find myself in agreement with Jerry and James on this. If you are a free resident, is it not your constitutional right to bear arms? Background checks seem utterly pointless.

I don't believe the right to bear arms is a universal human right, but it is clearly a US constitutional right and should not be subject to state or federal laws without a constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
But where does the constitution say that convicted felons (who have obviously served out their sentence, if they're free) have no second amendment rights? Or indeed the 'institutionalized'? Why are these classes of people denied the right to self-defence? Who decided to place limits on constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

The People. Why do you want folks who have committed robberies & burglaries to own guns?
 
Thunder said:
if you have committed a felony and a judge has not reinstituted your right to possess firearms, or if you have been institutionalized by a judge.

the background check is to make sure you don't fall under one of these two categories.
Click to expand...

There are more than two federal categories (states, local governments can and in some cases do add additional qualifications):

Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.

Fugitives from justice

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.

Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.

Illegal Aliens

Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship

Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)

Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.
 
Andalublue said:
What is the point of these background checks? Under what circumstances is the state allowed to deny someone their rights under the second amendment? And what does the constitution say about this denial? If the constitution doesn't cover this, why is legislation allowed to trump constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

Background checks help separate those who are inclined to use guns and those who are not so inclined.

However, I do disagree with the conservative response. I don't think felons who are released, even if time is served, should get free access to guns. The truth is that criminal recidivism is way too high to entrust these people with a tool that can help them commit crimes they are known to commit. Obvious exceptions can be made, such as if you're in prison for insurance fraud or some non-violent crime, but if someone was sent away for assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated anything, rape, etc. your right to ever touch a weapon is forfeit, in my opinion. You are demonstrably untrustworthy for it.
 
Gipper said:
Background checks help separate those who are inclined to use guns and those who are not so inclined.
Click to expand...
How? If a convicted felon has served their sentence then denying them the same access to self-defence as other citizens is unconstitutional. If an individual has been certified insane, then they should be institutionalised. If they are not so seriously disturbed as to require care and institutionalisation, then denying them the same self-defence as other citizens is unconstitutional.

However, I do disagree with the conservative response. I don't think felons who are released, even if time is served, should get free access to guns. The truth is that criminal recidivism is way too high to entrust these people with a tool that can help them commit crimes they are known to commit.
Click to expand...
Then you need a constitutional amendment to state that, don't you?

Obvious exceptions can be made, such as if you're in prison for insurance fraud or some non-violent crime,
Click to expand...
So, does that exception exist?
 
Risky Thicket said:
There are more than two federal categories (states, local governments can and in some cases do add additional qualifications):

Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.

Fugitives from justice

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.

Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.

Illegal Aliens

Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship

Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)

Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.
Click to expand...
Then why are none of these exceptions mentioned in the constitution? Why has no amendment been effected?
 
Andalublue said:
Then why are none of these exceptions mentioned in the constitution? Why has no amendment been effected?
Click to expand...

The People put in new laws. The People have spoken, and they don't want convicted felons, children, non-citizens, folks under indictment, or folks who have been institutionalized in the past, owning firarms.

why would you?
 
I like the background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns, and I like the waiting periods so that no one can purchase a gun in the heat of passion, or especially to kill themselves in the depths of depression. Beyond that, it's illegal guns that need to be the focus of our efforts. Lawful gun owners are actually pretty responsible people, though many illegal guns are stolen from those lawful owners. That's one major thing that needs addressing. And that's one reason why I support registration of weapons, to help track them and make them harder to steal. Not to hinder legal owners, but to hinder criminals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom