• 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 are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?


  • Total voters
    32
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Nope. I can have one but not the other if I want to.
No, no you can't
You're arguing that felons should not have guns and that its ia OK to infringe the rights of the law abiding so that they cannot get them, but it -is- OK for them to not be prosecuted when they try to buy one.

The absurdity of this is is plain on its face.

Further, that it is not important enough to prosecute clearly illustrates that there is no compelling state interest in the background check; absent that compelling state interest the check itself fails the test of strict scrutiny and is therefore an unconsitutional restriction on the right of the people.
Prosecutors use discretion all the time.
Jaywalking isnt a felony, and isn't so important that it requires the infringement of a right in order to stop. Either its a big deal or its not.
You don't seem to mind when it comes to other laws.
Such as...?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Nope, you are demonstrating throughout this thread that you think every right has subsets, part of it was your idea that prior restraint only applies to freedom of speech, this is false, but hey, don't mind my logic it's only based on what is patently obvious.

I never said prior restraint only applies to freedom of speech.

Go read my actual words.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

No, no you can't
You're arguing that felons should not have guns and that its ia OK to infringe the rights of the law abiding so that they cannot get them, but it -is- OK for them to not be prosecuted when they try to buy one.

The absurdity of this is is plain on its face.

Go complain to every prosecutor in America then, because it happens all the time with many kinds of crimes.

But suppose we dropped the penalty, and just left the background check, preventing unlawful gun sales. Ignoring the constitutionality issue for a moment, would you still find the law worthless or "unenforced"?

Further, that it is not important enough to prosecute clearly illustrates that there is no compelling state interest in the background check; absent that compelling state interest the check itself fails the test of strict scrutiny and is therefore an unconsitutional restriction on the right of the people.

There's a compelling state interest in preventing gun ownership by those who are not legally allowed to own one.

Jaywalking isnt a felony, and isn't so important that it requires the infringement of a right in order to stop. Either its a big deal or its not.

The jaywalking is an analogy.

Such as...?

Now you need me to name all the laws that aren't fully prosecuted? Many non-violent ones involve selective prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Go complain to every prosecutor in America then, because it happens all the time with many kinds of crimes.
YOU are the one arguing that it is acceptable for the state to not prosecute a felony, one relatied to an isusse of (supposedly) great societal importance, one so great that it justified the infringement of the rights of the law-abiding.

As I said, the absuridy of this is self-evident; your attempt to equivocate yourself out of is illustrates your recognition of same.

There's a compelling state interest in preventing gun ownership by those who are not legally allowed to own one.
Apparently not, if the attempt to purchase same is not found important enough to prosecute.

This is no different than making it illegal to drink and drive, with all kinds of associated penalties for doing so, and then ignoring those that do it.

The jaywalking is an analogy.
It was -your- supporting argument. As such, it fails.

Now you need me to name all the laws that aren't fully prosecuted?
No... just the ones you claim I am OK with not prosecuting.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

But suppose we dropped the penalty, and just left the background check, preventing unlawful gun sales. Ignoring the constitutionality issue for a moment, would you still find the law worthless or "unenforced"?
You're asking me if, once you remove all the things that are wrong with it, is there still anything wrong with it?
That's just silly.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You most certainly did.



Those are your actual words.

Yes they are. And they say that I've never heard it used that way. They do NOT say that it can't be used that way.

Learn to read.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Yes. And they say that I've never heard it used that way. They do NOT say that it can't be used that way.

Learn to read.
Well, you are equating your anecdotal evidence to try to invalidate goobieman's point, otherwise why would you bother opining. This attempt at playing to ambiguity won't work here.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Well, you are equating your anecdotal evidence to try to invalidate goobieman's point, otherwise why would you bother opining. This attempt at playing to ambiguity won't work here.

Nope. You're putting words in my mouth again.

My words mean exactly what they said. I hadn't heard that before. If you notice, I later said he might have a point.

That's twice you've tried to speak for me. Don't. I'll do it for myself.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Nope. You're putting words in my mouth again.

My words mean exactly what they said. I hadn't heard that before. If you notice, I later said he might have a point.

That's twice you've tried to speak for me. Don't. I'll do it for myself.
You used the point as a counter, and based on anecdotal evidence. Anyone with a simple grasp of logic would realize what you were saying.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Stupid? I was just repeating what YOU said: it prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.

Was that stupid?


Playing silly games I see

CLinton Bragged that because of the Brady Bill 100,000 felons were unable to get guns

It is akin to Clinton putting guards at several thousand banks and bragging those guards stopped 100,000 bank robberies even if the robbers robbed other banks at the same rate as they did before the guards were hired.


Here is what really happened. Many of the people who were denied properly were people who had minor league felonies from years ago-often charges that were no longer felonies such as weed possession others had stuff like dishonorable discharges. Many others were just moronic felons who figured their old records couldn't be found.

In other words, the Brady bill did nothing to make anyone safer (though one left wing study did Find that the Brady bill waiting period did cause suicides among say 55-60 year olds to slightly decrease)

NOW if everyone who lied on the federal form got say 3 years for perjury, a fair amount of crime probably would have been prevented.

The fact is if you merely deny a felon a legal purchase and they plan on using the gun for a crime, you have accomplished nothing

Its the concept of inelastic demand vs elastic demand
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Well we know where liberals and moderates stand.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Well we know where liberals and moderates stand.

The word stand is subject to debate in that context
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You used the point as a counter, and based on anecdotal evidence. Anyone with a simple grasp of logic would realize what you were saying.

Nope. Not even close. I think Goobieman understood that, even if you didn't. And most important, I SAY that's not what I meant. I know what I meant, you don't. So give it up.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

CLinton Bragged that because of the Brady Bill 100,000 felons were unable to get guns

It is akin to Clinton putting guards at several thousand banks and bragging those guards stopped 100,000 bank robberies even if the robbers robbed other banks at the same rate as they did before the guards were hired.

Is it though?

Do you have evidence that just as many felons bought guns after the Brady Bill passed as before?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Are you suggesting, that ex-convicts should be able to buy guns legally, because they will buy them illegally otherwise.

I really dont have a opinion on the status of excons, but many honest citizens would feel safer, when murders and other criminals who use guns on us cant buy them legally?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You're asking me if, once you remove all the things that are wrong with it, is there still anything wrong with it?
That's just silly.

Not silly at all.

Got an answer?

And here's another question - if a background check is prior restraint doesn't that make any furnishing of proof of legal qualification to do anything also prior restraint? Such as giving an ID to prove your age in order to buy a gun? Or to get a beer? Is that unconstitutional too?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Are we just debating or does someone want to make a point?

Who wants ex-cons who maybe have killed someone, easy access to guns? They probably have lost other rights like being able to be a policeman or hold public office. Does anybody bitch about these infringments?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Are you suggesting, that ex-convicts should be able to buy guns legally, because they will buy them illegally otherwise.

I really dont have a opinion on the status of excons, but many honest citizens would feel safer, when murders and other criminals who use guns on us cant buy them legally?

I believe ex-convicts should be able to buy guns legally because once the full of their punishment is over, the full of their rights should once again be recognized.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I believe ex-convicts should be able to buy guns legally because once the full of their punishment is over, the full of their rights should once again be recognized.

But losing their rights is part of the punishment. They lose their freedom (go to prison) for a few years, and they lose other rights for longer than that. So their punishment isn't over.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Are we just debating or does someone want to make a point?

Who wants ex-cons who maybe have killed someone, easy access to guns?

Wouldn't making it harder for them to get firearms result in the same for the huge vast majority like 99.999999% of the population who has not done anyone wrong present or in their past? Should we require a license,registration for books, paper, computer, churches and other things just because someone committed treason,libel, a crazy cult that killed lots of people or something else?


I used to be on board the ex-cons shouldn't be allowed to do shit anymore band wagon too.However the government has no business infringing on any citizens right's just because of a few bad apples or what a few bad apples did in the past. If these ex-cons were so dangerous that they can not be trusted with full rights as a US citizen then they should not have been released from prison in the first place. So their rights as American citizens should not be infringed. It doesn't make any sense infringing the rights of those who do obey the law under the guise of stopping those who do not obey the law in the first place.

They probably have lost other rights like being able to be a policeman or hold public office. Does anybody bitch about these infringments?


Being a policeman,politician or serving in the military is not constitutional right that does not say shall not be infringed or that congress shall make no law restricting.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

But losing their rights is part of the punishment.

What if the government said ex-cons will be banned from religion,protest, addressing grievances to the government, shall not have any more 5th amendment rights or any other constitutional rights?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

What if the government said ex-cons will be banned from religion,protest, addressing grievances to the government, shall not have any more 5th amendment rights or any other constitutional rights?

Fine, if that's what society thinks is necessary and appropriate, though I wouldn't necessarily support that. This excludes, of course, 5th amendment or other criminal process rights. Those obviously can't be taken away.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Well we know where liberals and moderates stand.

Isn't that like two of the same thing these days?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Fine, if that's what society thinks is necessary and appropriate, though I wouldn't necessarily support that. This excludes, of course, 5th amendment or other criminal process rights. Those obviously can't be taken away.

If the government can take away other rights then surely nothing can stop them from taking even rights aimed at criminals.
 
Back
Top Bottom