• 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 is "common sense" gun control?

What is "common sense" gun control?


  • Total voters
    28
How many gun owners have used a gun in any extreme to protect their home and or loved ones? Tell your tale here: Here's mine. I used mine one time when myf ront door was kicked off the hinges by someone who thought someone was going to shoot him. I did not fire but held him at bay until the cops came to sort it out.
 
As far as dealer transfers I am unclear as to whether this is a transfer between dealers, or a sale ala retail from dealer to consumer. I treated it as a deal between the retail to the consumer, and voted for an instant background check.
That is how it was intended.
 
It is a precondition on the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right.
As such, it is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infeingement.

Same for licensing and registration.
 
Last edited:
I'm against "gun control" as it is normally used, but I don't think absolutes work either. For example, my BF has a few full automatics (all licensed and those license I gather are for a specific firearm to the specific person only - expensive, background checks, long delay and even federal discretion to grant).
One of those is an old belt feed tripod mounted 50 caliber. The firearms all left in to him in his father's estate. I REALLY wouldn't want it easy for anyone to have one of those.

What about cannons and bazookas? Could someone fly around in an old WWII airplane with its wing cannons and machines guns as his "right to bear arms"?

The question seems to be what is "reasonable" in terms of the rights of citizens to "bear arms," but to not have crazy-man or cult mass murder ability either.
 
It is a precondition on the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right.
As such, it is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infeingement.

Same for licensing and registration.

I don't think the ban on prior restraint applies to any of the rights except speech/press

**EDIT**
Also prior restraint is not the same as preconditions. Prior restraint means that you cannot prevent somebody from publishing something, you have to wait and then press charges/file suit
 
Last edited:
I don't think the ban on prior restraint applies to any of the rights except speech/press
If the -concept- applies to one right, it applies to them all.

Prior restraint means that you cannot prevent somebody from publishing something, you have to wait and then press charges/file suit
And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.

Prior restraint attempts to prevent an illegal act before it happens by restricting a right. In these terms, guns and free speech are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.

Prior restraint attempts to prevent an illegal act before it happens by restricting a right. In these terms, guns and free speech are the same thing.

Its not that simple as the definition of "arms" (the term in the Bill Of Rights) also is at question. What about a 16 inch caliber "gun" off an old warship?

Free speech is restricted in many regards. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater the most commonly given. You can't threaten to harm the president. Actually, threatening to violently harm anyone generally is criminal. You can be economically punished for liable and slander. You can't urge others to do violence or crimes. There are volumes of restrictions on commercial language. You can't talk for someone else in court unless you are a licensed lawyer. Can't give some types of medical advice unless you are a licensed doctor. All those are "prior restraints."

"Licensing" generally isn't considered a restriction.
 
Last edited:
It is a precondition on the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right.
As such, it is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infeingement.

Same for licensing and registration.

I think I took the registration of the guns incorectly. I thought of it as a form of serial number on the gun similar to a VIN number on vehicles.

I figure that all gun owners can use this number when a gun is stolen etc so that if the gun is discovered by police in the use of a crime, they would be able to have some knowledge as to how th egun was obtained. I figured it would be usefull in tracking thefts and whatnot, and thus could prevent criminals from obtaining guns, whereas it wouldn't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I don't really think that was what you meant by registration, though. I might be wrong.
 
Its not that simple as the definition of "arms" (the term in the Bill Of Rights) also is at question. What about a 16 inch caliber "gun" off an old warship?
"Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, unquestionably applies to any weapon you'd care to mention within the context of a conversation regarding "gun control".

Free speech is restricted in many regards. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater the most commonly given.
What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?

You can't threaten to harm the president. Actually, threatening to violently harm anyone generally is criminal.
What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?

You can be economically punished for liable and slander. You can't urge others to do violence or crimes.
What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?

There are volumes of restrictions on commercial language. You can't talk for someone else in court unless you are a licensed lawyer. Can't give some types of medical advice unless you are a licensed doctor.
What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?
 
I think I took the registration of the guns incorectly. I thought of it as a form of serial number on the gun similar to a VIN number on vehicles.

I figure that all gun owners can use this number when a gun is stolen etc so that if the gun is discovered by police in the use of a crime, they would be able to have some knowledge as to how th egun was obtained. I figured it would be usefull in tracking thefts and whatnot, and thus could prevent criminals from obtaining guns, whereas it wouldn't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I don't really think that was what you meant by registration, though. I might be wrong.
By "registration" I mean the requirement to inform the government that you have such and such a gun.
 
If the -concept- applies to one right, it applies to them all.

Uhhh...no. That's not how it works. In Near v Minnesota SCOTUS ruled prior restraint in first amendment issues unconstitutional. They ruled on a 1st amd. issue and the ruling applies only to the 1st amd. Not the entire constitution


And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.

That is not how the law or the constitution reads.

Prior restraint attempts to prevent an illegal act before it happens by restricting a right. In these terms, guns and free speech are the same thing.

So does taking a person who threatens suicide into protecting custody. Thankfully, prior restraint does not apply in this instance because no court or law has ever applied it to suicide (just like gun control)
 
Last edited:
How many gun owners have used a gun in any extreme to protect their home and or loved ones? Tell your tale here: Here's mine. I used mine one time when myf ront door was kicked off the hinges by someone who thought someone was going to shoot him. I did not fire but held him at bay until the cops came to sort it out.

While we were having a small get together some teenagers pulled up in front of our house and jumped out and started beating our car and a neighbor's with baseball bats for no apparent reason. My husband ran in the house, got our gun, and ran out to fire a warning shot. The kid then proceeded to break our back windshield before running back to the car and taking off. When the cops came they then proceeded to act like a bunch of assholes because we brought out our gun to defend ourselves and our property. When we asked one cop to see if they could get fingerprints off of a beer bottle one of the kids had thrown he said "This ain't CSI" and just left it there, giving us a condensending manner the whole time.Also, according to those pricks, who were passing as cops, using a gun to defend yourself against people like that is against the law. One of the so-called cops actually said that unless the guy is bigger than you, you cannot shoot someone who breaks into your house and call that self defense. Because only if someone is bigger than you can they pose a threat. :shock:
 
Uhhh...no. That's not how it works. In Near v Minnesota SCOTUS ruled prior restraint in first amendment issues unconstitutional. They ruled on a 1st amd. issue and the ruling applies only to the 1st amd. Not the entire constitution
You seem to think that I am arguing that there is precedent that supports my decision. Not sur ehow you came up with that, but....

In fact, I am arguing conceptually. That any given court hasnt ruled that way is meaningless.

And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.
That is not how the law or the constitution reads.
Tell me the difference, conceptually.

So does taking a person who threatens suicide into protecting custody.
This person has commited an action that is not pursuant to this rights.
Thus, your example here is non-sequitur.
 
Last edited:
How is "registration" a restriction? I don't see anything in the Constitution saying anything about the right to secretly bear (or own) arms at all.

Free speech doesn't mean the government can't record what you say or write. Doesn't law require that for many types of publications a copy must be sent to the library of Congress?
 
What is "common sense" gun control?

Store unloaded and locked, use both hands to grip, watch your background, only reliece the safety and place your finger on the trigger when your actually going to fire......could you be more specific with your question please?
 
You seem to think that I am arguing that there is precedent that supports my decision. Not sur ehow you came up with that, but....

In fact, I am arguing conceptually. That any given court hasnt ruled that way is meaningless.


Tell me the difference, conceptually.


This person has commited an action that is not pursuant to this rights.
Thus, your example here is non-sequitur.

I thought that you were saying prior restraint does apply - not that it should, and that it does because it applies to the first. I was just showing this to be false - if it's irrelevant to what you're saying disregard the whole thing
 
How is "registration" a restriction? I don't see anything in the Constitution saying anything about the right to secretly bear (or own) arms at all.
This has been explained in a prior post.
Registration is precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to that right.
 
"Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, unquestionably applies to any weapon you'd care to mention within the context of a conversation regarding "gun control".


What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?


What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?


What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?


What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?

You posted:

If the -concept- applies to one right, it applies to them all.


And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.

Prior restraint attempts to prevent an illegal act before it happens by restricting a right. In these terms, guns and free speech are the same thing.

You can't make up your mind it seems. If someone makes their view on practical considerations, you argue it is absolute theory that matters. But when someone then responds that your absolute theory comparison to free speech is wrong, then you shift 180 degrees to claim there is no practical comparison.
 
I thought that you were saying prior restraint does apply - not that it should, and that it does because it applies to the first. I was just showing this to be false - if it's irrelevant to what you're saying disregard the whole thing
10-4. :mrgreen:
 
While we were having a small get together some teenagers pulled up in front of our house and jumped out and started beating our car and a neighbor's with baseball bats for no apparent reason. My husband ran in the house, got our gun, and ran out to fire a warning shot. The kid then proceeded to break our back windshield before running back to the car and taking off. When the cops came they then proceeded to act like a bunch of assholes because we brought out our gun to defend ourselves and our property. When we asked one cop to see if they could get fingerprints off of a beer bottle one of the kids had thrown he said "This ain't CSI" and just left it there, giving us a condensending manner the whole time.Also, according to those pricks, who were passing as cops, using a gun to defend yourself against people like that is against the law. One of the so-called cops actually said that unless the guy is bigger than you, you cannot shoot someone who breaks into your house and call that self defense. Because only if someone is bigger than you can they pose a threat. :shock:

Ever think about relocating? Seriously, some people really don't like where they live for many different reasons, but also won't move. That never made sense to me. There are many urban areas in particular that are so pro-criminal and anti-citizens that you are just victims waiting to happen. Other areas give equally extreme deference to citizens in relation to criminals and crime/ potential crime. Why live where criminals rule law?
 
Last edited:
You can't make up your mind it seems. If someone makes their view on practical considerations, you argue it is absolute theory that matters. But when someone then responds that your absolute theory comparison to free speech is wrong, then you shift 180 degrees to claim there is no practical comparison.
You dont understand.
I agree that there are limits on the term "free speech" as used in the 1st.
You may, at your lesiure, apply the -concepts- behind those limits to the 2nd amendment.
But, you have to argure apples/apples.
 
You dont understand.
I agree that there are limits on the term "free speech" as used in the 1st.
You may, at your lesiure, apply the -concepts- behind those limits to the 2nd amendment.
But, you have to argure apples/apples.

The restrictions on free speech - even as prior restraints - are generally too protect others, not to restrain the words. Certain types of words are deemed inherently poising to great a danger to others to allow.

Restrictions on weapons also are to protect others, not to restrain guns. Certain types of weapons inherently poise to great a danger to others.

There is an inherent balancing necessary to rights as one right comes to infringe on the rights of others. I have a right - in my opinion - to not be exposed to the danger of someone with nuclear weapons living next door as an extreme example. I have a right to send my children to school without fear of the escalated danger of some demented person entering the school with a fully automatic Uzi in each hand. I have a right to attend a Sarah Palin rally without fear of someone opening up with a fully automatic 50 caliber on us from a mile away.

But I also have a right to carry my .357 derringer in my purse. I don't see it as an infringement that I first had to obtain a license - which tests you on basic gun law and usage knowledge. Rather, I see that requirement as balancing rights of myself and others. I would support a requirement that a person complete and pass a gun safety course prior to gun ownership. I would support that strongly.
 
Last edited:
Ever think about relocating? Seriously, some people really don't like where they live for many different reasons, but also won't move. That never made sense to me. There are many urban areas in particular that are so pro-criminal and anti-citizens that you are just victims waiting to happen. Other areas give equally extreme deference to citizens in relation to criminals and crime/ potential crime. Why live where criminals rule law?

Vandalism occurs everywhere. Every morning on the news I see home invasions going up across the whole city. Criminals do not rule the law here, where I live is a quiet little neighborhood that one time got vandalized by stupid teenagers. Also right now I am not in a position to move but that's a whole other story. Besides that even if I could move, I wouldn't. I love where I live and am not going to let some wanna be thugs ruin it here.
 
Back
Top Bottom