• 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!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?

  • Total voters
    61
molten_dragon said:
How do you support that, since the constitution only mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to purchase or sell arms.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding? You can own a weapon, but you have no right to buy one? Are you serious?
 
Guy Incognito said:
What are you talking about? I do not want to restrict the purchase of fire arms by the citizenry. But the state has a right to decide who can be a gun dealer, and issue licenses as such. That's a restriction on sale. Get it?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The thread is talking about the Constitution, not local or state government. Quite a jump.
 
American said:
You have to be kidding? You can own a weapon, but you have no right to buy one? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

He's half wrong and half right about that. No, the words purchase and sell are not mentioned in the second amendment, but if a restriction is so severe that it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, then it is unconstitutional. Since gun ownership is a fundamental right, strict scrutiny would apply. That means that the government can restrict it but only by the least restive means possible and only for a compelling purpose.
 
Guy, there appears to be some confusion about your position. At first you say no restrictions other than those in the Constitution (which defines no restrictions), then you say licenses and such.

Perhaps it would help if you would spell out exactly what restrictions or controls on firearms you consider permissible, and by whom.
 
Guy Incognito said:
He's half wrong and half right about that. No, the words purchase and sell are not mentioned in the second amendment, but if a restriction is so severe that it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, then it is unconstitutional. Since gun ownership is a fundamental right, strict scrutiny would apply. That means that the government can restrict it but only by the least restive means possible and only for a compelling purpose.
Click to expand...

where did the federal government get the power to do that Guy?
 
Blackdog said:
What are you talking about? The thread is talking about the Constitution, not local or state government. Quite a jump.
Click to expand...

You're not following me. The government retains the right to tax the sale of guns and to regulate it in the least restrictive means possible, say by requiring gun dealers to get a permit from the county, etc. Those are restrictions, hence the poll. If you don't have a license to sell guns granted by the government, you are restricted from selling guns. It is ia restriction on sale. You see, despite my strongly pro-gun views, I read the wording of the poll carefully and answered properly. Nobody can seriously argue that the consitution prohibits any restrictions on the sale or purchase of firearms.
 
Guy Incognito said:
He's half wrong and half right about that. No, the words purchase and sell are not mentioned in the second amendment, but if a restriction is so severe that it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, then it is unconstitutional. Since gun ownership is a fundamental right, strict scrutiny would apply. That means that the government can restrict it but only by the least restive means possible and only for a compelling purpose.
Click to expand...


This, I agree with entirely. It is how we handle other fundamental rights, no?
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Activist Supreme Court Justices like Scalia gave it to them.
Click to expand...

More dishonesty-start with the FDR expansion of the commerce clause as first embodied in the 1934 National Firearms Act

all those things you want existed long before Scalia took the bench. so I ask you again since you want to play this game with me

where in the Constitution was the federal government PROPERLY DELEGATED THE POWER TO DO ANYTHING when it comes to Firearms
 
I have a gun show and the range to go to (a couple miles apart) Maybe during that time Guy can form an argument why the Federal government PROPERLY has the power to regulate small arms. Try as I might, I can find no such power PROPERLY delegated to the Federal government and the fact that such a power did not "Appear" until FDR was elected leads me to believe claims that such a power is proper are statist and specious
 
Goshin said:
Come now, sir. You know as well as I, that playing devil's advocate is one thing; willfully setting aside logic and reason, and willfully ignoring available evidence to the contrary, is something else.
Click to expand...

When gun control issues come up, a certain small (but annoying) segment always seems to come back with the argument 'No, it's unconstitutional'. They make no further argument based on the merits of the particular bill/idea in question, they simply state that it is unconstitutional as if that ends the argument. This is an attempt to counter that argument by pointing out the ridiculousness that can ensue (i.e. the government cannot prohibit you from owning a gun, but they can prohibit you from buying one) if the constitution is interpreted too strictly. Obviously, in this case, the 2nd amendment was not intended to be read that way, however, if we're already agreeing to interpret it a little more liberally in that case, then arguing that it cannot be interpreted a little more liberally in another case is ridiculous.

The short version is, arguments for gun control should be debated on their merits, and not simply sidestepped by stating 'it's unconstitutional' and nothing else.
 
molten_dragon said:
When gun control issues come up, a certain small (but annoying) segment always seems to come back with the argument 'No, it's unconstitutional'. They make no further argument based on the merits of the particular bill/idea in question, they simply state that it is unconstitutional as if that ends the argument. This is an attempt to counter that argument by pointing out the ridiculousness that can ensue (i.e. the government cannot prohibit you from owning a gun, but they can prohibit you from buying one) if the constitution is interpreted too strictly. Obviously, in this case, the 2nd amendment was not intended to be read that way, however, if we're already agreeing to interpret it a little more liberally in that case, then arguing that it cannot be interpreted a little more liberally in another case is ridiculous.

The short version is, arguments for gun control should be debated on their merits, and not simply sidestepped by stating 'it's unconstitutional' and nothing else.
Click to expand...


Purely on their merits then, there should be no gun control, as gun control laws have never been demonstrated to achieve their intended goals in America. :)

But constitutionality is indeed an issue, a major one. As Guy Incognito pointed out, as a fundamental right it must be protected, and infringement narrowly construed. Government intrest must be shown to be extremely compelling, and the infringement shown to be necessary, useful and narrowly focused to achieve a specific goal.

By those standards hardly any gun control laws in the US would qualify as meeting constitutional muster, as they are almost entirely ineffective in their stated goals of reducing violent crime.
 
Constitutional this , Constitutional that !
Why do so many people rely on an old scrap of paper written hundreds of years ago ?
Why don't they try thinking for themselves, coming up with proposals to allow life to be better for most of us?
I believe that capability does not exist, that "these people" are selfish, only caring about their own agenda, their own fears...
Seriously, people, its not the 1700s any more.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, some restrictions on the purchase and sale like taxes, licenses, etc are constitutional.

The reason why some restrictions on sale, like a five day waiting period, are unconstitutional, is because they infringe the right to keep and bear. Mere restrictions on the purchase and sale are permissible, the question is what impact on the right to keep and bear arms do the restrictions have.
Click to expand...



Shall not be infringed, does not include (you need a license)
 
Guy Incognito said:
Determining if somebody is a legal US citizen and determining if somebody is of sound mind are two huge restrictions. What else do you want, Nancy Pelosi, a five day waiting period?
Click to expand...
If a man truly possessed a "sound mind", that last thing he would be doing is buying more guns and ammo..
England has the answer.
 
earthworm said:
If a man truly possessed a "sound mind", that last thing he would be doing is buying more guns and ammo..
England has the answer.
Click to expand...



Oh joy. bloviated nonsense.


Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine



n a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."
Click to expand...


Fail
 
earthworm said:
If a man truly possessed a "sound mind", that last thing he would be doing is buying more guns and ammo..
England has the answer.
Click to expand...


Ah, so wishing to be able to protect your family is insanity. Thank you for clearing that up for us. Your wisdom is truly astonishing.

Post something about how you're more likely to shoot your own family member than a criminal, and I will counter with statistics showing that firearm accidents are actually rare and defensive uses more common than usually credited in the MSM.

I had an article, which I can probably find, where a Brit visiting America talks about how safe he felt here, more safe than in London, and concluded there were a handful of primary reasons, among them our laws against public drunkenness, and our tradition of firearm ownership and self-defense.

I can debunk anything you've got. Bring it on.
 
Goshin said:
I'll sum up at the end of the post, but I prefer to let my "crew" sing the opening verse....




I have pages and pages of Founder comments on the 2A.

To sum up:
All American citizens are members of the "unorganized militia".
The Founders, those who wrote the Constitution, clearly intended the militia, that is the people, to be as well armed as the "Standing army".
Therefore it is not Constitutional to restrict the citizenry from owning/possessing/carrying anything that a US military Infantryman might carry as a personal weapon.
Click to expand...

If only we had the quality of people for this to be possible..
We did not back then, and we do not, today...
IMO, the Constitution was written back then, in the 1700s by the tea baggers of that era to appease the gun lovers of that day...
 
earthworm said:
If only we had the quality of people for this to be possible..
We did not back then, and we do not, today...
IMO, the Constitution was written back then, in the 1700s by the tea baggers of that era to appease the gun lovers of that day...
Click to expand...



not only are you ignorant, you are rather a vulgar hoplophobe, eh? :shrug:
 
molten_dragon said:
Here is the text of the 2nd amendment.
Going strictly by what is written, restrictions on the purchase of firearms seem to be constitutional. Agree or disagree?
Note that I'm not asking whether they are a good idea or not, that's a separate debate. I'm only asking whether they are constitutional.
Click to expand...
You have to be more specific.
If the question is "any" restrictions, then the answer is no.
If the question is "certain" restrictions, then, depending on the examples you set out for consideration, the answer is "maybe".
 
megaprogman said:
If you want to go by a strict reading, it reads "arms" not guns. Technically if a you have a big stick, you are armed.
This is why strict readings can be somewhat useless in constitutional interpretation.
Click to expand...
This silliness again?
All firearms fall under the definition of armsas the term is used in the 2A.
 
Blackdog said:
ID and a criminal background search etc are not restrictions and are not restricting your rights to own a weapon.
Click to expand...
Background checks are a form of prior restraint. Prior restriant is an infringement. The 2A prohibits infringements.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Nor is there a ristriction on unsound minds either, you're basically putting words in the founders mouths.
Click to expand...
There is a legal restriction that has been held as constitutional. Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has rhe right to vote.
 
earthworm said:
If a man truly possessed a "sound mind", that last thing he would be doing is buying more guns and ammo..
Click to expand...
You have that exactly backwards.
 
Goobieman said:
There is a legal restriction that has been held as constitutional. Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has rhe right to vote.
Click to expand...

Ok, so age requirements may be implied, and same goes for former convicts and people with civil liberties lawfully taken away. But that doesn't say anything about a citizenship requirement or anything a nebulous as a mental health requirement, which is my point. I never disputed an age requirement for gun ownership, although I think that should ultimately be up to the parents. Gun ownership is a fundamental right, just like freedom of speech, freedom of worship, etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom