• 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
Goobieman said:
Aside from the transfer of information ourside the shop (which is irrelevant), this doesnt at all differ from a norman NICS check.
In both cases, the state requires that the buyer wait while an actor of the state checks his background. Its still prior restraint.

.
I would very much be OK with this.
Click to expand...

I think we're agreed then. The easiest, most simple solution is to scarlet letter the felons. :mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
Aside from the transfer of information ourside the shop (which is irrelevant), this doesnt at all differ from a norman NICS check.
In both cases, the state requires that the buyer wait while an actor of the state checks his background. Its still prior restraint.
Click to expand...

What if the check was voluntary for the seller. Then, the state does not make you wait, the seller does. He most likely will check to be sure he doesn't break the law by selling a weapon to a felon, but at the same time he is not required by law to check.
 
shiznit770 said:
What if the check was voluntary for the seller.
Click to expand...
I beleive I have already stated that if the seller were to -voluntarily- check a database, pursuant to his requirement to not sell a gun to anyone that he reasonable suspects might not be able to buy one, it would not violate the 2nd amendment.
 
I have property rights, and rights to enter contracts, and the right to possess the tool. I got every right to sell any of my possessions. Right there, I already hold all the rights I need. If you try to create a de facto ban by going after merchants, it is the same second amendment you are trying to violate, just one citizen removed. If I'd gun you down over trying to take my gun, you can be damn sure I'd gun you down for trying to take my gunsmith.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Which amendment guarantees the right to sell weapons?

That's a privilege, not a right.
Click to expand...

Property rights. You can't tell someone they can't sell their property.
 
Voidwar said:
I have property rights, and rights to enter contracts, and the right to possess the tool. I got every right to sell any of my possessions. Right there, I already hold all the rights I need. If you try to create a de facto ban by going after merchants, it is the same second amevdment you are trying to violate, just one citizen removed.
Click to expand...

Regulation of Gun Sales = De Facto Ban? Where did you get that irrational emotional nonsense from?


If I'd gun you down over trying to take my gun, you can be damn sure I'd gun you down for trying to take my gunsmith.
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl:rofl

YOU BADASS!!!!

:2funny::2rofll:
 
Tucker Case said:
Regulation of Gun Sales = De Facto Ban? Where did you get that irrational emotional nonsense from?
Click to expand...

What do you think a de facto ban is ?

What if they hassle my gunsmith with a 1000% tax on his goods ?

10000 % ? Start to sound like INFRINGMENT to you ?

Tucker Case said:
YOU BADASS!!!!

:2funny::2rofll:
Click to expand...

Laugh all you want, my seriousness about my second amendment rights is not a jest.
 
Tucker Case said:
You can regulate the way that they do it.
Click to expand...

You can't stop them from doing it. A man has the right to make a living, guns are legal so you can't say someone can't sell guns. Moreover, many of the "gun control" laws which seek to limit and slow the sales are draconian at best and should be considered assaults against our rights. The only possible one which could maybe be ok is an instant check to see if one is a felon or not. Waiting periods, restrictions, bans, excessive fines and taxes, etc, are all assaults against a base right of the individual and should be treated as such. As such, you can't stop someone from selling their property, as guns are legal you can not stop someone from selling guns. Not rightfully anyway, maybe if you applied enough force you could.
 
Voidwar said:
What do you think a de facto ban is ?

What if they hassle my gunsmith with a 1000% tax on his goods ?

10000 % ? Start to sound like INFRINGMENT to you ?
Click to expand...

Who made that argument?



Laugh all you want, my seriousness about my second amendment rights is not a jest.
Click to expand...

I laugh at your threats against my life.
 
Ikari said:
You can't stop them from doing it. A man has the right to make a living, guns are legal so you can't say someone can't sell guns. Moreover, many of the "gun control" laws which seek to limit and slow the sales are draconian at best and should be considered assaults against our rights. The only possible one which could maybe be ok is an instant check to see if one is a felon or not. Waiting periods, restrictions, bans, excessive fines and taxes, etc, are all assaults against a base right of the individual and should be treated as such. As such, you can't stop someone from selling their property, as guns are legal you can not stop someone from selling guns. Not rightfully anyway, maybe if you applied enough force you could.
Click to expand...

Read the part in you wrote that I made bold, and reread all of my posts and tell me where I made any claims that didn't concur with the bolded portion.

Thanks.
 
Tucker Case said:
I laugh at your threats against my life.
Click to expand...

I made no threat. I informed you of the consequences of certain hostile acts taken against me, or by extension my associates. The "You" in my previous post could perhaps be more accurately termed "One / Someone". The "You" was not personal, but representative of a hypothetical "anyone".
 
Tucker Case said:
Read the part in you wrote that I made bold, and reread all of my posts and tell me where I made any claims that didn't concur with the bolded portion.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:
That's why I would not be in favor of mandatory registration of firearms. I would only be in favor of the GID number that I spoke of earlier.
Click to expand...


Also, your talk of restricting sales as if contract and property are not rights.
 
Ikari said:
Also, your talk of restricting sales as if contract and property are not rights.
Click to expand...

How is a Gun ID number as described earlier a restriction? (Notice I said I wasn't in favcor of registration)

What was my talk of restricting sales?
 
Voidwar said:
I made no threat. I informed you of the consequences of certain hostile acts taken against me, or by extension my associates. The "You" in my previous post could perhaps be more accurately termed "One / Someone". The "You" was not personal, but representative of a hypothetical "anyone".
Click to expand...

Where did anyone state that they would ban sales or restrict sales of guns or make any hostile gestures towards anyone, in fact, before you ranted about killing people?
 
Tucker Case said:
How is a Gun ID number as described earlier a restriction? (Notice I said I wasn't in favcor of registration)

What was my talk of restricting sales?
Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:
Which amendment guarantees the right to sell weapons?

That's a privilege, not a right.
Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:
Regulation of Gun Sales = De Facto Ban? Where did you get that irrational emotional nonsense from?
Click to expand...

After reading some of your posts, I think we argue rather similar things. But in terms of property I'm not sure I can agree with that. You can say guns are legal, but selling guns is illegal (restriction of sales) and that is a defacto-gun ban. Property and contract are rights and if something is legal, then I think people are more than free to sell that property.
 
Ikari said:
After reading some of your posts, I think we argue rather similar things. But in terms of property I'm not sure I can agree with that. You can say guns are legal, but selling guns is illegal (restriction of sales) and that is a defacto-gun ban. Property and contract are rights and if something is legal, then I think people are more than free to sell that property.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can say selling weapons is illegal because of property rights, but it is regulatable.

That's where the difference between what is a right and what is a privelidge.

I don't think gun ownership is regulatable because it is a right.

Where as the ability to sell weapons is a privelidge and it can require licensing and regulation etc.

I don't think it would be possible to revoke that privelidge, though, without violating property rights.

But I do think it's possible to punish someone for not following protocols and regulations associated with that privelidge.

Selling guns is very similar to like selling alcohol or tobacco. Orignally I said "selling guns for profit" in this thread, which is different form the personal sale of a weapon.


Overall, I'm very much in support of gun rights as well as the ability to obtain gun.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where did anyone state that they would ban sales or restrict sales of guns or make any hostile gestures towards anyone, in fact, before you ranted about killing people?
Click to expand...

You claimed I do not have the right to sell my gun.

You thus implicitly support people trying to get "enforcement" on me if I sell my gun in spite of your rules.

You may or may not realize it, but your position contains an implied threat.

When you make "X" illegal, that means you threaten to send armed men to attack anyone doing "X". If I have a right to "X" and will not be bullied out of it, then these men roll the dice and we have a gunfight. If anyone sends armed men to attack me , you can bet that if I survive, my next move is to find and kill whoever sent them.
 
Voidwar said:
You claimed I do not have the right to sell my gun.
Click to expand...

You don't have a "right" to sell guns. You have the privilege to do so. That is what I said.

Where is there a right to sell guns expressly stated in the constitution? If you cannot cite this as a right, then I am correct.

Until you can cite an express right to sell property, I'm going to assume you made it up. If you can cite for me a right to sell property, I'll concede my error. I do this all the time if I am misinformed on a subject.

You thus implicitly support people trying to get "enforcement" on me if I sell my gun in spite of your rules.
Click to expand...

If someone breaks the law, I would hope they get arrested, yes. You don;t have the right to sell your werapon. You have the privelidge to do so. If you do so in an illegal way, I do hope that law enforcement to do their jobs yes. That is not a threat, but it is just how laws work.

You may or may not realize it, but your position contains an implied threat.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no threat in my position.

When you make "X" illegal, that means you threaten to send armed men to attack anyone doing "X". If I have a right to "X" and will not be bullied out of it, then these men roll the dice and we have a gunfight. If anyone sends armed men to attack me , you can bet that if I survive, my next move is to find and kill whoever sent them.
Click to expand...

If someone who breaks the law then compounds that by shooting at police officers, I hope that teh police officers respond in kind and kill that person.

Such a raving lunatic is a danger to society and they deserve to die. ;)
 
Property is an inherent right though; pursuit of life, liberty, and property. It's from Locke, and Locke influenced many of the founders. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely lists a few of them. The full of our rights aren't included in it. Anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved by the People and the many States.
 
Ikari said:
Property is an inherent right though; pursuit of life, liberty, and property. It's from Locke, and Locke influenced many of the founders. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely lists a few of them. The full of our rights aren't included in it. Anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved by the People and the many States.
Click to expand...

IT is stunning how few people understand this fact. They assume the centralized government PROPERLY has the power to do whatever it wants unless the courts say otherwise when in reality, the centralized federal government properly only has the power to do that which was expressly granted it in the constitution. THus those lamers who claim the second amendment does not apply to individuals and/or those not in the militia almost always fail to tell us what part of the constitution gives the federal government the power to act as to arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom