• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%

  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%
  • Total voters
    148
Boo Radley said:
Ok. But I do be the argument has been used to justify regulations we have, and was argued before most of us were born.
Click to expand...

actually FDR wanted to ban machine guns to put the bootleggers out of business (as idiotic as thinking an interstate ban on switchblades would get rid of the hells' angels) but his AG said that was unconstitutional so they concocted a tax scheme based on the Commerce Clause that would make owning a MG too expensive for anyone but the wealthy
 
TurtleDude said:
actually FDR wanted to ban machine guns to put the bootleggers out of business (as idiotic as thinking an interstate ban on switchblades would get rid of the hells' angels) but his AG said that was unconstitutional so they concocted a tax scheme based on the Commerce Clause that would make owning a MG too expensive for anyone but the wealthy
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more US v Miller. But there are other places as well I think.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm thinking more US v Miller. But there are other places as well I think.
Click to expand...

Miller was an outcome based decision where there was no Miller in attendance to present a contrary argument since he had died by the time the case came up. and if we were to actually follow miller then the tommy gun, the M14, the M2 and the M16 would all be clearly protected since the military use thereof is indisputable

the supremes were braying asses in that case because they pretended that there was no evidence of shotguns being used by the military which is idiotic. indeed there was a major controversy in WWI where US soldiers used Winchester 1897 and 1912 model shotguns loaded with buck shot as "trench sweepers" -far more effective in the close quarters of trench warfare than bolt action rifles. The germans claimed that buck shot=which was soft lead rather then FMJ bullets, violated the hague convention (often called the geneva convention terms) against "expanding" or 'dum dum' bullets
 
TurtleDude said:
Miller was an outcome based decision where there was no Miller in attendance to present a contrary argument since he had died by the time the case came up. and if we were to actually follow miller then the tommy gun, the M14, the M2 and the M16 would all be clearly protected since the military use thereof is indisputable

the supremes were braying asses in that case because they pretended that there was no evidence of shotguns being used by the military which is idiotic. indeed there was a major controversy in WWI where US soldiers used Winchester 1897 and 1912 model shotguns loaded with buck shot as "trench sweepers" -far more effective in the close quarters of trench warfare than bolt action rifles. The germans claimed that buck shot=which was soft lead rather then FMJ bullets, violated the hague convention (often called the geneva convention terms) against "expanding" or 'dum dum' bullets
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I understand the Miller ruling. The main point was that they could regulate.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, I think I understand the Miller ruling. The main point was that they could regulate.
Click to expand...

yeah and it was based on a fraudulent expansion of the commerce clause because they didn't want to upset the guy who threatened to pack the court

but the regulation was based on a bogus factual assumption
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah and it was based on a fraudulent expansion of the commerce clause because they didn't want to upset the guy who threatened to pack the court

but the regulation was based on a bogus factual assumption
Click to expand...

That sounds like an excuse to me. Would you agree we regulate today? Seem to me that argument won he day.
 
Boo Radley said:
That sounds like an excuse to me. Would you agree we regulate today? Seem to me that argument won he day.
Click to expand...

that is the statist approach
 
Boo Radley said:
No approach. Just a fact.
Click to expand...

yes and many people believe it was based on improper grounds. sort of like claiming that some guy in my home state not Growing wheat impacted "interstate commerce"

FDR used the turmoil of the times to basically crap all over the bill of rights
 
TurtleDude said:
yes and many people believe it was based on improper grounds. sort of like claiming that some guy in my home state not Growing wheat impacted "interstate commerce"

FDR used the turmoil of the times to basically crap all over the bill of rights
Click to expand...

Whether it was or wasn't does change where we are. There is virtually no chance of that changing.
 
Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.

While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.

Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes and many people believe it was based on improper grounds. sort of like claiming that some guy in my home state not Growing wheat impacted "interstate commerce"

FDR used the turmoil of the times to basically crap all over the bill of rights
Click to expand...

Well you know what they say in Chicago about never letting a tragedy go to waste...
 
Zyphlin said:
Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.

While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.

Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. And where the line is does seem moveable. But the concept is accepted.
 
Zyphlin said:
Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.

While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.

Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.
Click to expand...

many of what Scalia and his former law clerk Professor STeven Calabresi term "faint hearted originalists" will not fight the regulations because while they were clearly unconstitutional when passed, these FHO don't want to cause upheaval by overturning crap that has been around for decades.

however, the scholarship is more and more on our side

the utter idiocy of many gun control measures and the arguments supporting them has started to become obvious to people other than us hard core gun rights advocates
 
TurtleDude said:
many of what Scalia and his former law clerk Professor STeven Calabresi term "faint hearted originalists" will not fight the regulations because while they were clearly unconstitutional when passed, these FHO don't want to cause upheaval by overturning crap that has been around for decades.

however, the scholarship is more and more on our side

the utter idiocy of many gun control measures and the arguments supporting them has started to become obvious to people other than us hard core gun rights advocates
Click to expand...

I would be interested to see evidence of this scholorship shift you speak of. I'm not sure it's real.

I did search but didn't find anything on it. I did however find this, which I thought was interesting:

Simplicity vs. Complexity

One of the biggest problems with the Second Amendment debate is that a genuinely historical understanding of this issue requires one to accept that historical truth is seldom simple: so many overlapping shades of grey rather than stark blacks and whites. The effectiveness of the gun rights argument rests on its utter simplicity and refusal to engage with historical complexity. If one reads the comments sections on any of a dozen gun rights blogs one sees the same quotes and arguments recycled time and again. (There is a remarkably strong gun rights presence in cyberspace. Gun control supporters seem to have other hobbies.) For gun rights advocates, there is one interpretation and all the evidence points in that one direction. If this were actually true, then the Second Amendment would be unique in American constitutional history since it would be the only part of the constitution whose meaning was never contested and never changed in the time between the Founding era and the modern period.

Given that the language of individual rights is now everywhere in modern America, it is hard to explain the historical meaning of the Second Amendment, which is the product of a different era when the language of rights was not nearly as individualistic as it has become. This difference in the meaning of “rights” from the 18th to the 21st centuries is crucial to making sense of the 2nd Amendment today. Consider the language of the original draft of the first five amendments to the Constitution that Congress proposed in 1791. (The term “Bill of Rights” is itself a later name that was only applied to the first ten amendments in the nineteenth century.)


Article the First.
After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the Second.
No law varying the compensation to the members of Congress, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the Third.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
Article the Fourth.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
Article the Fifth.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Rights: House of Representatives, Amendments

The most obvious fact about this list is that what we know as the Second Amendment was originally the Fifth. Also, the first two Amendments do not have anything to do with individual rights.

The language of the original assembly clause, which shares with our Second Amendment the phrase “right of the people” bears close scrutiny. Rather than frame the right to assemble in individualistic terms, the right is framed in civic terms. It is a right of the people to assemble for a particular public purpose, “to consult for the common good, and apply to the government for a redress of grievances.” The phrasing of this right captures the importance of civic republican ideas to the founding generation.

ORIGINS | The Second Amendment Goes to Court
 
Jerry said:
Assault rifles been banned since 1986.

There's a way to get one if you're a licensed collector and have a lot of money, but you can't go down to Wall-Mart and buy an assault rifle.

Anyway, no assault rifle was used in either of these shootings.
Click to expand...

I know theyre banned and I know you can get them illegally..I used that as an example.
 
Obama is going to make the same mistake he did his first term...he got embroiled in health care right off instead of dealing with the economy and it looks like hes going to do the same thing. Get embroiled in a gun ban battle.

To secure schools it would take far harsher security measurse than society would tolerate. All school doors locked and chained and only one door entrance and exit with metal detector and trained armed security or a Trained Police Officer permanent position. The cost would be high. Even then theres no guarantees.

Heres something I found interesting and I honestly didnt expect...seems weve had alot of school shootings every decade going back to the 1800s and the first school shooting recorded was in the 1700s.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1950s

Scroll to the top of page

Seems in 1927 in Michigan was the worst school shooting ever...45 victims
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Google "Connecticut's Assault Weapon Ban", read the text of the law, and that's your answer.
Click to expand...

This is a state Governor suggesting. Hardly proposed federal legislation. And, to top it off, there was no mention made of an attack on gun owners!
 
lpast said:
I know theyre banned and I know you can get them illegally..I used that as an example.
Click to expand...
Non-LEO civilians need assault rifles for the same reason LEO civilians do (and police do have assault rifles).

But the point is moot since no assault rifles were used in this murder. According to Connecticut law, no "assault weapons" were used in this murder, either.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
every year nut case democrats introduce bans on semi auto sporting firearms. Diane FineSwine has promised to introduce another ban in back when she helped get the first one passed, she admitted she wanted to seize all those that were currently owned at the time. Weren't you one of the obama supporters who claimed Obama and the dems were not anti gun?
Click to expand...

Since gun fanatics believe there is no difference in these types of semi automatic military style rifles and others available it will not even be a hardship, much less an attack on gun owners.
 
Jerry said:
Non-LEO civilians need assault rifles for the same reason LEO civilians do (and police do have assault rifles).

But the point is moot since no assault rifles were used in this murder. According to Connecticut law, no "assault weapons" were used in this murder, either.
Click to expand...

Jerry read what I wrote ok..I never said there was an assault weapon used...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom