• 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!

Does registration infringe on your right to...

Which of these registration requirements violate your rights?

  • Total voters
    29
liblady said:
thank you for not being snide. of course i understand the history, but in my opinion, the rights we enjoy are really social constructs. the men who created the bill of rights merely listed the rights they believed we should have, not rights bestowed us from on high.
Click to expand...

They were the rights most necessary for the restricting of government.
 
liblady said:
thank you for not being snide. of course i understand the history, but in my opinion, the rights we enjoy are really social constructs. the men who created the bill of rights merely listed the rights they believed we should have, not rights bestowed us from on high.
Click to expand...
Your 'belief' ignores the reality of the situation.

So, believe it all you want -- you're demonstrably wrong.
 
liblady said:
thank you for not being snide. of course i understand the history, but in my opinion, the rights we enjoy are really social constructs. the men who created the bill of rights merely listed the rights they believed we should have, not rights bestowed us from on high.
Click to expand...

They already held those rights, many protected under the various state constitutions prior to the federal constitution. They had to be convinced that they would retain their rights unthreatened under the new system.

They did not list them believing they should have them, they listed them to ensure they would not be usurped under the new, more powerful (than the articles), constitution of the united states.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
It is an infringement. And registration does violate the 4th as well.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Not being able to scream fire in a crowded theater doesn't infringe on your right to free speech. No right has ever been seen as absolute. The inability to own your own personal nuclear weapon doesn't infringe on your right to bear arms either.
 
Cephus said:
No it isn't. Not being able to scream fire in a crowded theater doesn't infringe on your right to free speech.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges -- that the first does not protect yelling fire in a theater does no tin any way support the idea that the 2nd does not allow for registration.

Does the 1st amendment allow the government to force you to register with said government before going to church?

Does the 1st amendment allow the government to force you to register with said governent before attending a political rally?

Does the 2nd amendment allow the government to force you to register with said governent before you buy a gun?

Please explain the disparity in your answers.
 
Cephus said:
No it isn't. Not being able to scream fire in a crowded theater doesn't infringe on your right to free speech. No right has ever been seen as absolute. The inability to own your own personal nuclear weapon doesn't infringe on your right to bear arms either.
Click to expand...

Screaming fire in a crowded theater creates a panic, thus you have created a situation in which you have put people's lives in danger. Owning a gun does not do this. Purchasing ammo does not do this. Thus they are not comparable situations. Threateningly brandishing a gun is like screaming fire in a theater. If you want to make the point that you can not threateningly brandish your gun in public without good cause, I'll probably agree with you. Till that point, try to keep it apples to apples.
 
liblady said:
you're right again. i have a hard time understanding why they needed to be enumerated, if they already existed, though.
Click to expand...
Because the antifederals demanded them through the state conventions.
 
Ikari said:
Screaming fire in a crowded theater creates a panic, thus you have created a situation in which you have put people's lives in danger. .
Click to expand...

So does having a gun in public.
 
I was contemplating this recently and I think Western society is decaying for the simple reason that people don't understand the purpose of government anymore. They have become lazy, have lost their revolutionary spirit, and want a nanny state to take care of them. I see it all around me. When something bad happens to one person, people cry out to have a law made about it. It's like saying, "Here you go government, have more power."

The government used to know its place. Now it's becoming its own management board where the people just take orders. The same thing is happening in Canada as in the U.S.
 
Orius said:
I was contemplating this recently and I think Western society is decaying for the simple reason that people don't understand the purpose of government anymore. They have become lazy, have lost their revolutionary spirit, and want a nanny state to take care of them. I see it all around me. When something bad happens to one person, people cry out to have a law made about it. It's like saying, "Here you go government, have more power."

The government used to know its place. Now it's becoming its own management board where the people just take orders. The same thing is happening in Canada as in the U.S.
Click to expand...

The government should never be granted personhood. And I'm against corporations being granted personhood as well.
 
Goobieman said:
Not any more than your right is infringed by having to pay for the gun itself.
Click to expand...

Therefore, having to pay for the gun is an infringement. By the Constitution, all firearms should be free. Again, how insane do you want to go?


Sales tax is part of the purchase price.
Purchasing the firearm is a precondition necessary to the exercise of the right
Click to expand...

Come again? Requiring payment is an infringement upon my right to have a firearm.

Furthermore, by your reasoning, registration is a precondition necessary to the exercise of the right

Therefore, registration is not an infringement.

Considering -your- posting history and your penchant for deliberatly failing to understand the points made to you, you need not bother posting at all...
Click to expand...

lol. The irony here is amusing.

You need to define the word your argument is based on. Or like all of your threads, it will end up worthless.
 
dbl post delete
 
obvious Child said:
Therefore, having to pay for the gun is an infringement. By the Constitution, all firearms should be free. Again, how insane do you want to go?
Click to expand...



That would be an insane argument, considering the Constitution bars government infringement, not private.

Which is not to say, of course, that someone requiring I pay for something before I get it IS an "infringement" of anything.



Furthermore, by your reasoning, registration is a precondition necessary to the exercise of the right

Therefore, registration is not an infringement.
Click to expand...

Nope. Registration is something the government requires you to do which is no way, shape, or form endemic to the sale. Paying for something IS endemic to a sale.
 
Harshaw said:
[/I]

That would be an insane argument, considering the Constitution bars government infringement, not private.

Which is not to say, of course, that someone requiring I pay for something before I get it IS an "infringement" of anything.





Nope. Registration is something the government requires you to do which is no way, shape, or form endemic to the sale. Paying for something IS endemic to a sale.
Click to expand...
OC doesn't see it, he just doesn't and never will.
 
Harshaw said:
[/I]

That would be an insane argument, considering the Constitution bars government infringement, not private.

Which is not to say, of course, that someone requiring I pay for something before I get it IS an "infringement" of anything.
Click to expand...

That depends on how you define infringement. I have been asking Goobieman to define it, yet in his usual dishonest way, he refuses to. It appears his definition is anything [he deems] that prevents/delays you from buying a firearm. By his working definition aside from the obvious double standards that generally comes in all of his posts, a sale tax prevents/delays you from owning a firearm. Furthermore, by his working definition of infringement, mere requirements to pay for it infringes upon your ownership as it delays or prevents ownership. While Goobieman may get all pushed out of shape for constant requests for him to define the key term, without it, we get this kind of stupid discussion as I predicted.

Without defining infringement, this discussion has only one place to go: down the toilet like all of Goobieman's threads.
 
American said:
OC doesn't see it, he just doesn't and never will.
Click to expand...

lol. Amusing, given that I am requesting an actual definition of infringement other then Goobieman's "whatever I deem" definition. As for you, your opinion means little. After all, you said that Toyota has the same problems as GM. Talk about ignorant.
 
How could you argue that registration is intrinsic to the purchase or ownership of firearms when in several states you can still purchase a gun without registering it?

And prior to any government intervention people did the same everywhere.

Registration is not intrinsic to the purchase or the ownership of firearms, I have one myself that is not registered in my name, it was bought by my great-grandfather in the 1950s.
 
obvious Child said:
That depends on how you define infringement. I have been asking Goobieman to define it, yet in his usual dishonest way, he refuses to. It appears his definition is anything [he deems] that prevents/delays you from buying a firearm. By his working definition aside from the obvious double standards that generally comes in all of his posts, a sale tax prevents/delays you from owning a firearm. Furthermore, by his working definition of infringement, mere requirements to pay for it infringes upon your ownership as it delays or prevents ownership. While Goobieman may get all pushed out of shape for constant requests for him to define the key term, without it, we get this kind of stupid discussion as I predicted.

Without defining infringement, this discussion has only one place to go: down the toilet like all of Goobieman's threads.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the word is used in a provision which limits government action, I'd think it's pretty obvious that having to pay for something you buy wouldn't fall into it, so I don't see why that needs to be defined. You're simply reducing to absurdity.
 
Harshaw said:
Well, considering the word is used in a provision which limits government action, I'd think it's pretty obvious that having to pay for something you buy wouldn't fall into it, so I don't see why that needs to be defined. You're simply reducing to absurdity.
Click to expand...

Except that sale taxes are not actually related to the real price of the firearm. They are an artificial add on that in no way represents the true value/cost/profit to the seller/buyer.

By your reasoning, a sale tax of $1 billion on a $5 item is not an infringement, even if it effectively bans people from owning things.

If sale tax made the purchase out of your reach for the time being, isn't that a delay? Doesn't that prevent you from owning it?

You fail to realize I am merely using Goobieman's definition of anything that prevents or delays. If you do not like that definition, take it up with him.
 
other said:
Registration is not intrinsic to the purchase or the ownership of firearms
Click to expand...

Neither is a sale tax. A sales tax is government coming into the transaction and placing artificial barriers that interfere with the normal transaction. If that sale tax is high enough, it can bar, prevent or delay the purchase. How does that not infringe?
 
obvious Child said:
Neither is a sale tax. A sales tax is government coming into the transaction and placing artificial barriers that interfere with the normal transaction. If that sale tax is high enough, it can bar, prevent or delay the purchase. How does that not infringe?
Click to expand...

I never said it didn't.

Federal sales taxes beyond what are specifically allowed within the constitution are certainly infringements, just like registering... especially prohibitive taxes, like you mentioned.

You don't pay a sales tax if you purchase from a private individual. You must when you purchase from a licensed dealer because, like many other areas, the government has encroached.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom