• 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
Licensing is a form of permission asking. You ask permission to have something, and are given a permit for it. Something which requires permission is not a right, it's a privilege. If to own and bear arms is a right, then you don't need the government's permission to exercise that right if you so choose.

That's right.
No matter how much damage libel or slander may cause (and, given that it is banned, it must cause a lot), you STILL do not need to ask the government permission - that is, to get a license - to exercise your right to free speech.

Its funny -- those that don't bat an eye at the idea of licensing the right to arms will scream like a stuck pig if you suggest licensing the right to free speech.
 
That's right.
No matter how much damage libel or slander may cause (and, given that it is banned, it must cause a lot), you STILL do not need to ask the government permission - that is, to get a license - to exercise your right to free speech.

Its funny -- those that don't bat an eye at the idea of licensing the right to arms will scream like a stuck pig if you suggest licensing the right to free speech.

Don't gun registrations and licenses help police track down weapons used in crimes? If someone could physically harm a person with free speech you'd have a point.
 
Don't gun registrations and licenses help police track down weapons used in crimes?
Even if true... so what? They are -still- infringements.
Don't wiretaps help track down criminals? Do you advocate we ignore the 4th amendment in order to use them? Why not?

If someone could physically harm a person with free speech you'd have a point.
"Harm" is not limited to physical damage to ones' body -- libel and slander are banned because of the harm they cause.
Thus, I have a point.
 
Even if true... so what? They are -still- infringements.
Don't wiretaps help track down criminals? Do you advocate we ignore the 4th amendment in order to use them? Why not?

Again, comparing it to a drastically different issue. License and Registration are something you volunteer into and are transparent processes. If you took away every law that "infringed" on our rights there would be little left. The constitution is not some perfect creation that if followed will lead to a Utopian society. I'm sure if we went into other issues you could find numerous instances where the benefits of infringing on rights outweighed the consequences.

"Harm" is not limited to physical damage to ones' body -- libel and slander are banned because of the harm they cause.
Thus, I have a point.

Regardless, I don't believe libel and slander can be placed on the same level as murder. Not to mention it is usually not difficult to determine the offender which is simply not the case where guns are concerned
 
Don't gun registrations and licenses help police track down weapons used in crimes? If someone could physically harm a person with free speech you'd have a point.

They can, it's called slander. There's also inciting riot/panic.
 
Regardless, I don't believe libel and slander can be placed on the same level as murder. Not to mention it is usually not difficult to determine the offender which is simply not the case where guns are concerned

You can cause a lot of damage with slander. And what about libel? If something is published anonymously, how are you going to find out? Won't someone please think of the children!
 
Again, comparing it to a drastically different issue.
No... the 'issue' you raised is that 'it will help solve crime'.

Ignoring the 4th amendment will solve a LOT more crime than gun licensing and registration, given that the number of crimes committed with a gun is very low compared to the number of total (even just violent) crimes.

So, any argument you make for ignoring the 2nd 'because it will help solve crimes' applies just that much more for ignoring the 4th amendment.

Why is it again that you do not advocate we ignore the 4th amendment in order to solve crimes?

License and Registration are something you volunteer into and are transparent processes.
No, they are not. You are -required- to do these things, if you want to exercise your right, and these things are not an inherent component to the exercise of that right. That means they are an infringement.

If you took away every law that "infringed" on our rights there would be little left.
That in no way creates a sound agument for infringing the right to arms.

The constitution is not some perfect creation...
Then amend it, rather than simply ignoring it.

Regardless, I don't believe libel and slander can be placed on the same level as murder.
Regardless, boith are banned because both cause sufficient level of 'harm' to warrant them being banned.
 
Last edited:
Only based on time/place/manner, and if you are protesting on public property.
This doesnt in any way create an argument that you can require a permit for simple posession of a firearm.

Why not? It's still prior restraint by your definition, and permits can be denied which would be infringement by your definition
 
Why not? It's still prior restraint by your definition...
No.

Parade/protest permits aren't required because of the content, or even the potential content, of the parade -- and expressedly CANNOT be denied because of those things -- but because they use public property and, often, public resources.

Given that, the right in question here isnt the right to free speech or to assemble, but the right to do those things on public property.

And so, none of that relates to simple posession of a firearm.
 
Last edited:
No.

Parade/protest permits aren't required because of the content, or even the potential content, of the parade -- and expressedly CANNOT be denied because of those things -- but because they use public property and, often, public resources.

Given that, they ARE an inherent part of the right to assemble, etc, should that right be exercised on public property.

And so, none of that relates to simple posession of a firearm.

Question: Would you be in favor of permits to posses firearms outside of the home in public property?

I'm just curious as to whether this would be an infringement. One can posses firearms in the home, and should be allowed to do so without any hindrance whatsoever, but I feel that local govenrments (not the federal govenrment) should also be allowed to have conceal carry permits and open carry permits with checks and such.

Again, I think it should be a state thing though, and it relates to the State militia portion of the ammendemnt.
 
No.

Parade/protest permits aren't required because of the content, or even the potential content, of the parade -- and expressedly CANNOT be denied because of those things -- but because they use public property and, often, public resources.

Given that, the right in question here isnt the right to free speech or to assemble, but the right to do those things on public property.

And so, none of that relates to simple posession of a firearm.

Seems pretty analogous to a CCW permit to me.
 
Question: Would you be in favor of permits to posses firearms outside of the home in public property?
Posession? No.

You MIGHT be able to convince me that a permit to USE a firearm on public property (in the same vein as parade permits) might not be a violation of the 2nd as it addresses the right to use public property rather the right to own/use a gun.

Again, I think it should be a state thing though, and it relates to the State militia portion of the ammendemnt.
Certainly.
 
You MIGHT be able to convince me that a permit to USE a firearm on public property...

The way you worded that with the caps got a chuckle out of me. :mrgreen:


Thinking of it though, if there were no permits necessary for possesion on public property, then there couldn't really be a requirement for a permit regarding certain uses of the weapon on public grounds (specifically defensive purposes).

But someone hunting pigeons in Central Park should probably need a permit of some sort. :mrgreen:
 
The way you worded that with the caps got a chuckle out of me. :mrgreen:
Tone is so hard to judge on a message board.

Thinking of it though, if there were no permits necessary for possesion on public property, then there couldn't really be a requirement for a permit regarding certain uses of the weapon on public grounds (specifically defensive purposes).
Posession and use are different things; the use, rather than the posession, of the firearm is always the issue when regarding guns, as the use of the gun is what causes harm to others.
Simple posession harms, and can harm, no one.

But someone hunting pigeons in Central Park should probably need a permit of some sort. :mrgreen:
Probably :2razz:
 
Bans for felons fall outside the "law abiding" requirement.
Background checks infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

I fully support any gun control law that means criminals will not have guns and that does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Let me know when you find one of those.

How exactly do you ban felons from buying guns if you feel performing background checks infringe on the rights of those buying guns? How would the gun seller know the buyer is a felon without performing a background check?
 
No... the 'issue' you raised is that 'it will help solve crime'.

Ignoring the 4th amendment will solve a LOT more crime than gun licensing and registration, given that the number of crimes committed with a gun is very low compared to the number of total (even just violent) crimes.

So, any argument you make for ignoring the 2nd 'because it will help solve crimes' applies just that much more for ignoring the 4th amendment.

Why is it again that you do not advocate we ignore the 4th amendment in order to solve crimes?

No, they are not. You are -required- to do these things, if you want to exercise your right, and these things are not an inherent component to the exercise of that right. That means they are an infringement.


That in no way creates a sound agument for infringing the right to arms.

Then amend it, rather than simply ignoring it.

Regardless, boith are banned because both cause sufficient level of 'harm' to warrant them being banned.

Please elaborate your definition of infringement as it pertains to Licensing and Registration. What part of the process infringes the right. I'm not sure what the criteria would be to deny someone either of those and we have not outlined what would be acceptable in your mind.
 
Posession and use are different things; the use, rather than the posession, of the firearm is always the issue when regarding guns, as the use of the gun is what causes harm to others.
Simple posession harms, and can harm, no one.

Possession is harmless, but it is still dangerous, and rightly regulated in many situations. I'm certainly not harmed by a person simply possessing a gun on a plane, but I'm in a lot more danger than if they aren't possessing a gun.
 
How exactly do you ban felons from buying guns
See:
18 USC 44 (g)(1)
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

So, to answer your question: You pass a law.

If you feel performing background checks infringe on the rights of those buying guns?
There's no 'feeling' involved. :roll:

The requirement for the check creates a restriction on the right that's not inherent to the right, creating a form of prior restraint.

That is, it keeps you from buying the gun on the grounds that it -might- be illegal for you to own a gun; you are being restricted from exercising your right because you MIGHT be violating a law, rather than AFTER you HAVE violated a law.

That's an infringement.

How would the gun seller know the buyer is a felon without performing a background check?
There's no legal requirement that he know any such thing.
 
Last edited:
Possession is harmless, but it is still dangerous
In an of itself, posession is both harmless and dangerless. My simply having a gun does you no harm, and creates no danger, for you.

USE is another issue entirely -- but then, the conversation here revolves around simple posession.
 
Please elaborate your definition of infringement as it pertains to Licensing and Registration.
I have stated this as clearly as I can, several times, on this thread.
Please look back. If you have a specific question as to my argument to that end, please feel free to ask.
 
There's no 'feeling' involved. :roll:

The requirement for the check creates a restriction on the right that's not inherent to the right, creating a form of prior restraint.

That is, it keeps you from buying the gun on the grounds that it -might- be illegal for you to own a gun; you are being restricted from exercising your right because you MIGHT be violating a law, rather than AFTER you HAVE violated a law.

That's an infringement.
How exactly can the person be restricted from owning a gun after they have violated a law if the gun seller is unable to check if they have violated the law?

Or is it your opinion NO ONE should be restricted from buying guns? Even if them buying the gun is in violation of the law of them owning it?

There's no legal requirement that he know any such thing.
So felon's should not be able to buy guns but it should be illegal for sellers to check if the buyer is a felon?
 
Last edited:
I have stated this as clearly as I can, several times, on this thread.
Please look back. If you have a specific question as to my argument to that end, please feel free to ask.

Your posts are anything but clear. Since you're convinced that registration and licensing "infringes" on the 2nd amendment right, state clearly a scenario where your argument would apply. As I see it, anyone failing to meet these two simple requirements would be a threat to those around them, so show me a case where this is not true and we'll have something constructive to discuss.
 
In an of itself, posession is both harmless and dangerless. My simply having a gun does you no harm, and creates no danger, for you.

USE is another issue entirely -- but then, the conversation here revolves around simple posession.

So there's no danger in allowing people to possess guns on planes?
 
Your posts are anything but clear. Since you're convinced that registration and licensing "infringes" on the 2nd amendment right, state clearly a scenario where your argument would apply. As I see it, anyone failing to meet these two simple requirements would be a threat to those around them, so show me a case where this is not true and we'll have something constructive to discuss.

Haven't you ever needed a gun and needed it NOW?
 
Back
Top Bottom