• 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
... to have an abortion/... to buy a gun
Nope, I think the government should be able to keep track of these based on the potential for abuse of either. Do we really want people running around with AK-47s unchecked?
All rights carry the 'potential' for abuse, and as such, by your arguments, all rights can be similarly limited.

After all, all men are potential rapists and all womern are potential prostitutes.

... to send a letter to the editor/... to publish a letter to the editor
I don't really understand these too well. I think you'd need to register to send a letter to the editor based on logistical factors and also, isn't the point of publishing sort of to take credit for it?
Yes, but that is different than being required to tell the rgovernment you're going it before you -can- do it.
 
Continuing with this particlar line of inanity only sodomizes your credibility.

Hey, if that's what you're into, ask the Catholics if they can spare some altarboys. Otherwise, this is just a cheap dodge.
 
All rights carry the 'potential' for abuse, and as such, by your arguments, all rights can be similarly limited.

After all, all men are potential rapists and all womern are potential prostitutes.


Yes, but that is different than being required to tell the rgovernment you're going it before you -can- do it.

As for the editor thing, I was a unsure of what exactly you meant by register. I thought you meant like registering for an account or something to send a letter to an editor, specifically an online account was what first popped into my head.

About the gun/abortion thing though,
So should nothing be limited?
All rights have a potential for abuse, that's quite true. Freedom of Speech, for example, does have limitations on slander. I'm not for banning gun ownership, especially handguns, but there is a limit to what people need or don't need to defend themselves. I won't accept that it's necessary for everyone to have a machine gun or for people to hide said guns from the government if it's abundantly clear they won't be taken away, like in America.

Registration is needed for regulation, which I think there is a need for both with guns or abortions. I certainly wouldn't want people coming in for abortions weeks before the baby is due... don't get it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the constitution -specifically- mentions the rights in reference to a well regulated militia. Funny how most gun-advocates entirely ignore the first 13 words of the second amendment, isn't it?

And it's funny how you ignore this:

The Right of the People
 
And it's funny how you ignore this:

The Right of the People

Yes, read it in the context in which it was written. At the time it was written, every able-bodied white male was required to come to the national (or even local defense) because we didn't have a standing army. The men were the army. They were required to own a firearm that they could use in said defense. That's why the amendment was written in the first place, to ensure that we would have a stand-up army should we need one. It guaranteed the rights of the well-regulated militia which was made up of the people.

Now it's true that the Supreme Court has ruled that it applies to all Americans, primarily because declaring otherwise would be a politically untenable position to take. It's not like closing the barn doors after the horse has escaped, it's like trying to close the barn doors after the horse has left, come back with a bazooka and blown the barn to kingdom come. Trying to confiscate millions of firearms is impossible, therefore they extended the right to most Americans. Not all. Felons cannot own arms. Minors cannot legally own arms. No one can own illegal arms. All of these represent restrictions on the ability to bear arms and for the most part, no one complains about them. Registration, IMO, is a restriction which can be placed on firearm ownership, like it or not, and in fact is beneficial to society.

Like it or not, the 2nd amendment has *NEVER* been seen as absolute. Deal with it.
 
I said yes to everything but voting since it is the only activity that causes harm if you do it more than once for the given period. (I won't get into the abortion debate as causing harm)

thus registration is rational in the sense that safeguards prevent people from voting more than once and in the right precinct
 
Yes, read it in the context in which it was written. At the time it was written, every able-bodied white male was required to come to the national (or even local defense) because we didn't have a standing army. The men were the army. They were required to own a firearm that they could use in said defense. That's why the amendment was written in the first place, to ensure that we would have a stand-up army should we need one. It guaranteed the rights of the well-regulated militia which was made up of the people.

And?

It still protects what it protects.

If you want to make the argument that the purpose of it no longer applies, it doesn't mean the right isn't still protected.

Your argument may be fine for repealing the amendment (which, frankly, it isn't), but it means absolutely bupkis to what the amendment protects. As long as it's in the Constitution, it still protects it.

"Deal with it."


Now it's true that the Supreme Court has ruled that it applies to all Americans, primarily because declaring otherwise would be a politically untenable position to take.

No, they did so because it was legally correct.



Like it or not, the 2nd amendment has *NEVER* been seen as absolute. Deal with it.

Another trope you should be embarrassed to trot out. No one argued that it is. Deal with THAT.
 
Hey, if that's what you're into, ask the Catholics if they can spare some altarboys. Otherwise, this is just a cheap dodge.
No, its not.

Your line of reasoning is unsound because, as everyone who pays attention to these things knows, the right to arms is held by the individual, regardless of any connection he might have to any militia, well-regulated or otherwise.
 
About the gun/abortion thing though,
So should nothing be limited?
All rights have a potential for abuse, that's quite true. Freedom of Speech, for example, does have limitations on slander.
Yes, that's correct -- but the limitation here is on the act itself, not the potential for committing the act. Your right to free speech isnt limited because you -might- commit an act of slander.
 
No, they did so because it was legally correct.

At one time, slavery was "legally correct" according to the courts. Just because they rule a particular way doesn't make it "correct" just factually true.

Another trope you should be embarrassed to trot out. No one argued that it is. Deal with THAT.

If you're not arguing that it is then what's the problem? Since the right to own firearms is not absolute, society has a right to put whatever roadblocks between the gun and the potential owner that it sees fit so long as it does not restrict ownership entirely. That means it can, and does, require you to register your firearms.

So what are you arguing about?
 
If you're not arguing that it is then what's the problem? Since the right to own firearms is not absolute, society has a right to put whatever roadblocks between the gun and the potential owner that it sees fit so long as it does not restrict ownership entirely.
This is a fallacy, as "infringe" includes restrictions that fall short of 'restricting ownership entirely'.

That means it can, and does, require you to register your firearms.
Not without infriinging on the right and therefore violating the Constittion.
 
This is a fallacy, as "infringe" includes restrictions that fall short of 'restricting ownership entirely'.

You seem to be picking and choosing which "infringements" you'll accept and which you won't. You don't seem to be bothered by restricting ownership entirely for convicted felons, you just don't happen to like this particular "infringement" so you're arguing against it.

Not without infriinging on the right and therefore violating the Constittion.

The Constitution doesn't mention restricting the type of firearm, thus not allowing anyone who wants to own a nuclear weapon to do so is "infringing on the right" and is in violation of the Constitition. Do you seriously want to change that? :roll:
 
At one time, slavery was "legally correct" according to the courts. Just because they rule a particular way doesn't make it "correct" just factually true.

At the time, it was in fact legally correct, too. An amendment enacted after a civil war changed that.

As I said, argue for changing the Constitution all you want. But as it stands, it says what it says and it protects what it protects.


If you're not arguing that it is then what's the problem? Since the right to own firearms is not absolute, society has a right to put whatever roadblocks between the gun and the potential owner that it sees fit so long as it does not restrict ownership entirely.

That's idiotic.

A protected right doesn't mean "the crumbs the government decides to let fall to the floor."


So what are you arguing about?

Start with strict scrutiny, the same level of protection given to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
 
You seem to be picking and choosing which "infringements" you'll accept and which you won't.
Unsupportable, as I have done no such thing.

And so, my statement stands -- "infringe" includes restrictions that fall short of 'restricting ownership entirely'.

You don't seem to be bothered by restricting ownership entirely for convicted felons, you just don't happen to like this particular "infringement" so you're arguing against it.
False premise.
That's because this isn't an infringement, as felons do not have the right to own firearms, their right to do so having been stripped thru due process.

The Constitution doesn't mention restricting the type of firearm, thus not allowing anyone who wants to own a nuclear weapon to do so is "infringing on the right" and is in violation of the Constitition.
Red herring.
"Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, does not include nuclear weapons, and therefore NONE of restrictions on their ownership violates the 2nd.

HOWever, ALL firearms DO fall under that term...

And this my statement stands, that governments can, and do, require you to register your firearms -- but not without infriinging on the right and therefore violating the Constittion
 
Last edited:
"Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, does not include nuclear weapons, and therefore NONE of restrictions on their ownership violates the 2nd.

Says who? Certainly at the time the Constitution was written, "arms" referred to all manner of cannons, etc. all of which are illegal to own today. The most extreme weapons they had at the time were legal to own. Why has the situation changed?

You're just doing a lot of very convenient reading.
 
Says who?
SCotUS, US v Miller.

And so, my statement stands, that "Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, does not include nuclear weapons, and therefore NONE of restrictions on their ownership violates the 2nd.

Just like my statements that "infringe" includes restrictions that fall short of 'restricting ownership entirely' and that governments can, and do, require you to register your firearms -- but not without infringing on the right and therefore violating the Constitution
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom