• 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
Gibberish said:
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?
Click to expand...
You're confused. You think you can use the law to keep people from breaking the law -- that is, that you can pre-empt crime.

The entire concept behind prior restraint is that you cannot infringe on the rights of people 'because they might' commit a crime, or 'just in case' they commit a crime -- you have to wait until they actually DO commit a crime before you can act.

You then enforce the law that was broken and punish the person that broke it.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You're confused. You think you can use the law to keep people from breaking the law -- that is, that you can pre-empt crime.

The entire concept behind prior restraint is that you cannot infringe on the rights of people 'because they might' commit a crime, or 'just in case' they commit a crime -- you have to wait until they actually DO commit a crime before you can act.

You then enforce the law that was broken and punish the person that broke it.
Click to expand...

So a violent felon who has been released should be allowed to own guns because he hasn't committed any crimes yet?
 
shiznit770 said:
Your posts are anything but clear.
Click to expand...
I have invted you to ask specific questions to clear things up.

Since you're convinced that registration and licensing "infringes" on the 2nd amendment right, state clearly a scenario where your argument would apply.
Click to expand...
I dont understand the question.
The easy and obvious answer is 'whenever you are required to get a license to buy a gun and register said gun'. I'm really not sure what you're asking for.
 
Hatuey said:
So a violent felon who has been released should be allowed to own guns because he hasn't committed any crimes yet?
Click to expand...
My position on felons is apparent, should you take the time to read the thread and note the poll results.
 
Goobieman said:
You're confused. You think you can use the law to keep people from breaking the law -- that is, that you can pre-empt crime.
Click to expand...

No I'm using the law to make sure that I am not violating the law by selling a felon a gun that is illegal for them to own.

Goobieman said:
The entire concept behind prior restraint is that you cannot infringe on the rights of people 'because they might' commit a crime, or 'just in case' they commit a crime -- you have to wait until they actually DO commit a crime before you can act.

You then enforce the law that was broken and punish the person that broke it.
Click to expand...

How is you submitting to a background check denying you the ability to own a gun?
 
Goobieman said:
I have invted you to ask specific questions to clear things up.


I dont understand the question.
The easy and obvious answer is 'whenever you are required to get a license to buy a gun and register said gun'. I'm really not sure what you're asking for.
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty straight forward.

State clearly a scenario where your argument would apply.

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject, surely you can think of an instance where someone's right was infringed due to these two requirements (the easiest way to support your argument).
 
Gibberish said:
No I'm using the law to make sure that I am not violating the law by selling a felon a guy that is illegal for them to own.
Click to expand...
Yes... and this then creates an infringement on the right to arms.

How is you submitting to a background check denying you the ability to own a gun?
Click to expand...
You cannot buy the gun until you undergo the check, and you undego the check because you might be breaking the law. Prior restraint.
 
shiznit770 said:
I thought it was pretty straight forward.
State clearly a scenario where your argument would apply.
Click to expand...
Ok, then... which argument?
I really am confused here...:confused:

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject, surely you can think of an instance where someone's right was infringed due to these two requirements (the easiest way to support your argument).
Click to expand...
The infringement comes in the requirement to obtain a license/registration in order to obtain simple posession of a firearm. Whenever someone is so required, his right is infringed.

This seems so plain toi me that I have to believe you;re actually asking me something else...?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Errr...you aren't allowed to possess a gun on a plane
Click to expand...
I said:

If there were, then no one would be allowed to have them
Click to expand...

You don't know what I do -- maybe I -am- allowed to posess a gun on a plane. Some people are, you know.

IF there was an INHERENT danger in doing so, then NO one would be allowed.
 
Goobieman said:
I said:



You don't know what I do -- maybe I -am- allowed to posess a gun on a plane. Some people are, you know.

IF there was an INHERENT danger in doing so, then NO one would be allowed.
Click to expand...

Besides air marshals who is allowed to have a gun on a plane?
 
Goobieman said:
Ok, then... which argument?
I really am confused here...:confused:


The infringement comes in the requirement to obtain a license/registration in order to obtain simple posession of a firearm. Whenever someone is so required, his right is infringed.

This seems so plain toi me that I have to believe you;re actually asking me something else...?
Click to expand...

You say the infringement comes in the requirement to obtain a license/registration. I disagree, explain how either of those infringe on someone's right. Their mere existence surely does not, unless you think sheer laziness is grounds for arguing that they are an infringement.

We are compelled to do many things but they are not infringements on our rights unless our requests are denied. Inconvenience, yes. Infringement, no.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
So it's limited to federal agents and the people who have control of the plane anyway. How does this imply that possession is not dangerous?
Click to expand...
I believe I already said:
If [the posession of firearms on an aircraft] were [inherently dangerous], then no one would be allowed to have them
 
shiznit770 said:
You say the infringement comes in the requirement to obtain a license/registration. I disagree
Click to expand...
Great. Explain how my argument is unsound.

Explain how either of those infringe on someone's right.
Click to expand...
I have done this at least three times, on this thread alone.
 
Goobieman said:
I believe I already said:
If [the posession of firearms on an aircraft] were [inherently dangerous], then no one would be allowed to have them
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Does the fact that the military possesses nuclear arms mean that possession of nuclear arms isn't dangerous?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
That's ridiculous. Does the fact that the military possesses nuclear arms mean that possession of nuclear arms isn't dangerous?
Click to expand...
This is a discussion about -guns- and -gun- control.
Like any reference to cars, arguments regarding nuclear weapons need not apply.
 
Goobieman said:
This is a discussion about -guns- and -gun- control.
Like any reference to cars, arguments regarding nuclear weapons need not apply.
Click to expand...

You're just dodging. You are well aware of what an analogy is.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Just because you don't want to address my points does not mean I am off topic
Click to expand...
No, the fact that you are trying to interject someting not part of the discussion into the discussion means you're going off-topic.

If you cannot make your point while remaining within the topic of conversation, then you cannot make your point.

Was there anything else?
 
Goobieman said:
No, the fact that you are trying to interject someting not part of the discussion into the discussion means you're going off-topic.

If you cannot make your point while remaining within the topic of conversation, then you cannot make your point.

Was there anything else?
Click to expand...

I was providing a clear counterexample. If you can't deal with that we appear to be at am impasse
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I was providing a clear counterexample. If you can't deal with that we appear to be at am impasse
Click to expand...
You can deliver as many off-topic counterexamples as you want -- being off-topic renders then irrelevant.

Simple posession of a -firearm- harms no one.
Simple posession of a -firearm- is a danger to no one.
Your reference to -nuclear weapons- does nothing to change this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom