• 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!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?

  • Total voters
    104
AlabamaPaul said:
I do not recall "infringe" being mentioned in the First...
Click to expand...

You are correct, infringe is not in the text.

However:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

pro•hib•it (proʊˈhɪb ɪt)

v.t.
1. to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law.
2. to forbid the action of (a person).
3. to prevent; hinder.

abridge [əˈbrɪdʒ]
vb (tr)
1. to reduce the length of (a written work) by condensing or rewriting
2. to curtail; diminish
3. (Law) Archaic to deprive of (privileges, rights, etc.)

infringe [ɪnˈfrɪndʒ]
vb
1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass


The wording of the First Amendment is much stronger and more direct than the Second Amendment. "make no law" "abridging (depriving) free speech". Yet you can't yell fire in a crowed movie house. Gasp!!


My point, stop throwing the word infringe around like some sort of trump card. SCOTUS has upheld concealed weapon bans and "longstanding prohibitions".

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Me either, perhaps you can explain that to the TurtleDude.







If you think you have a case, it should not be too hard to find some gun manufactures to take it court!
Click to expand...

maybe you can draw on your vast experience as a constitutional scholar and tell us how the interstate nexus is made with intrastate activity. That 90% of braindead people want the checks or because you have a faith based belief that they will stop crime is not the level of constitutional argument I find compelling
 
Catawba said:
No, you just proved you couldn't make your point.
Click to expand...

No, what was proven is that you can't fix stupid or get anywhere with a troll, so I won't play those games...
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe you can draw on your vast experience as a constitutional scholar and tell us how the interstate nexus is made with intrastate activity. That 90% of braindead people want the checks or because you have a faith based belief that they will stop crime is not the level of constitutional argument I find compelling
Click to expand...

Alls I knows mr TurtleDudes is that despite the wailing by the far right about gun control being unconstitutional, not a single federal gun control law applied to the whole country has ever been ruled to be unconstitutional.
 
Catawba said:
Alls I knows mr TurtleDudes is that despite the wailing by the far right about gun control being unconstitutional, not a single federal gun control law applied to the whole country has ever been ruled to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

the duty is on those who have wet dreams for laws that restrict our rights to demonstrate they are constitutional. since you cannot we can only conclude that you support unconstitutional infringements on our rights-or more likely

YOU HAVE NOT A CLUE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
 
TurtleDude said:
YOU HAVE NOT A CLUE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing the perspective of the 10% - 15% that oppose background checks! :cool:
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for sharing the perspective of the 10% - 15% that oppose background checks! :cool:
Click to expand...


your silly parrot squawking over silly polls is the sign that you haven't a rational argument

looks like the fervor for those stupid and unconstitutional checks is waning. you gonna go into a major bout of depression if they don't get passed
 
TurtleDude said:
your silly parrot squawking over silly polls is the sign that you haven't a rational argument

looks like the fervor for those stupid and unconstitutional checks is waning. you gonna go into a major bout of depression if they don't get passed
Click to expand...

The rationale argument was the legal history of national gun control laws never being ruled unconstitutional. You didn't want to hear that!
 
Catawba said:
The rationale argument was the legal history of national gun control laws never being ruled unconstitutional. You didn't want to hear that!
Click to expand...

still waiting for you to actually make a rational argument in favor of the crap you support

BTW Heller was a NATIONAL decision. so was McDonald.
 
Catawba said:
The rationale argument was the legal history of national gun control laws never being ruled unconstitutional. You didn't want to hear that!
Click to expand...

uh you lose again. anyplace that bans handguns is in violation of the constitution.

and I guess you cannot make a rational argument for any of the stuff you constantly babble in favor of
 
TurtleDude said:
still waiting for you to actually make a rational argument in favor of the crap you support

BTW Heller was a NATIONAL decision. so was McDonald.
Click to expand...


Neither of those laws applied nationally. You fail again! Time for you now to say it doesn't matter anyway, now that you failed.....in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....go...
 
Catawba said:
Neither of those laws applied nationally. You fail again! Time for you now to say it doesn't matter anyway, now that you failed.....in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....go...
Click to expand...

Can you provide a rational argument in favor of the crap you support?


The Clinton gun ban would have been struck down by Heller if it still existed.

the Lopez decision struck down a national gun law
 
TurtleDude said:
Can you provide a rational argument in favor of the crap you support?


The Clinton gun ban would have been struck down by Heller if it still existed.

the Lopez decision struck down a national gun law
Click to expand...


Congratulations! Out of all the federal gun laws passed through the years that apply in all states, you finally found one that was ruled unconstitutional, however, "This left the door open for a later Congress, with more complete evidence and justification, to enact a valid Act, based upon a more complete showing of evidence of interstate commerce being sufficiently "affected" to justify the exercise of the federal Commerce power."


Any constitutional challenges to the background check that has been law since 1993?
 
Catawba said:
Congratulations! Out of all the federal gun laws passed through the years that apply in all states, you finally found one that was ruled unconstitutional, however, "This left the door open for a later Congress, with more complete evidence and justification, to enact a valid Act, based upon a more complete showing of evidence of interstate commerce being sufficiently "affected" to justify the exercise of the federal Commerce power."


Any constitutional challenges to the background check that has been law since 1993?
Click to expand...

the courts are catching up with the scholarship. the stench of FDR and his jurisprudential turds is starting to wane

tell us Catawba, Make a rational argument for all the stuff you pine for.

and hating gun owners isn't a sound argument
 
TurtleDude said:
the courts are catching up with the scholarship. the stench of FDR and his jurisprudential turds is starting to wane
Click to expand...

Translation- you couldn't find ****!

tell us Catawba, Make a rational argument for all the stuff you pine for. and hating gun owners isn't a sound argument[
Click to expand...

The rationale for background checks is to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally deranged than simply walking into a neighborhood gun show in 40 states and buying a gun for cash with no questions asked.
 
Catawba said:
Translation- you couldn't find ****!



The rationale for background checks is to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally deranged than simply walking into a neighborhood gun show in 40 states and buying a gun for cash with no questions asked.
Click to expand...
yet with 20 years of the Brady check, there is no evidence that has decreased violent or gun crime. SO on the facts, your prediction has failed. and your "no questions asked" of course, is a lie
 
TurtleDude said:
yet with 20 years of the Brady check, there is no evidence that has decreased violent or gun crime. SO on the facts, your prediction has failed. and your "no questions asked" of course, is a lie
Click to expand...


Only the far right believe that. The great majority of people don't see the wisdom of letting criminals and the mentally deranged buy guns with no questions asked at neighborhood gun shows across the country.
 
Catawba said:
Only the far right believe that. The great majority of people don't see the wisdom of letting criminals and the mentally deranged buy guns with no questions asked at neighborhood gun shows across the country.
Click to expand...

How would criminals get out of their jail cells to buy guns? Likewise, how would the mentally deranged get out of their hospitals to buy guns?
 
Catawba said:
Only the far right believe that. The great majority of people don't see the wisdom of letting criminals and the mentally deranged buy guns with no questions asked at neighborhood gun shows across the country.
Click to expand...

the vast majority of people are unaware of the fact that the laws you drool over have no chance in decreasing crime and they are unaware of the fact that the brady bill-despite stopping allegedly 1.9 million sales did ZERO to decrease violent or gun crime and resulted in less than 300 prosecutions

if the public knew that the Government has no intention of actually enforcing the law, I doubt so many would share your orgasmic glee over the prospect of the stupid law being passed
 
Catawba said:
If you think so, post any credible national poll that backs up your claim that more than 10% - 15% oppose background checks for all gun buyers.
Click to expand...

Well because you asked and I ran across this yesterday…here you go:
13. A new federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens…5% favor/92.2% totally oppose
Click to expand...
http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf

Now I’m sure you will argue this is not a ‘credible national poll’ but consider this survey was performed by On Message Inc. NOT the NRA…or you will argue that the new law does not propose ‘banning the sale of firearms between private citizens’ which I will counter that yes it does as the new law requires an intermediary (the FFL who will perform the BGC).
 
TurtleDude said:
the vast majority of people are unaware of the fact that the laws you drool over have no chance in decreasing crime and they are unaware of the fact that the brady bill-despite stopping allegedly 1.9 million sales did ZERO to decrease violent or gun crime and resulted in less than 300 prosecutions

if the public knew that the Government has no intention of actually enforcing the law, I doubt so many would share your orgasmic glee over the prospect of the stupid law being passed
Click to expand...



You may think that 85% of gun owners are stupid, I do not.
 
Dickieboy said:
Now I’m sure you will argue this is not a ‘credible national poll’ .......
Click to expand...


Its not a wonder you are sure, since this survey was paid for by the NRA. Couldn't find any credible national polls that back up your claim eh! Imagine that!
 
Catawba said:
You may think that 85% of gun owners are stupid, I do not.
Click to expand...

I think those who support those laws are either ignorant, dishonest or stupid

most of them have no clue about what the anti gun zealots are planning

very few understand that the federal government has made almost no effort to enforce the current laws involving those who lie on checks

and many don't realize that the people who push these laws-like you-want more and more harassment of gun ownership to the point of gun bans

but it looks like the dream of this silly law is waning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom