• 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
I don't think the sale of firearms should be restricted by mental illness. Civil rights round 3.
 
I don't think the sale of firearms should be restricted by mental illness. Civil rights round 3.

I agree. A lot of people, even those who claim to be staunch gun rights advocates, take it as a given that gun ownership rights do not apply to the mentally ill. Is gun ownership not a fundamental right? We do not simply revoke fundamental rights because a person is not completely mentally healthy, that is absurd.
 
I agree. A lot of people, even those who claim to be staunch gun rights advocates, take it as a given that gun ownership rights do not apply to the mentally ill. Is gun ownership not a fundamental right? We do not simply revoke fundamental rights because a person is not completely mentally healthy, that is absurd.

It's not like a mentally disturbed person couldn't get a gun even if their were laws in place.

I personally would never sell a firearm to someone I knew to be unstable...and I think most responsible gun dealers wouldn't do so either, but not all gun dealers are responsible, and not everyone with access to guns is law-abiding in the first place. Laws won't ever change that.
 
It's not like a mentally disturbed person couldn't get a gun even if their were laws in place.

I personally would never sell a firearm to someone I knew to be unstable...and I think most responsible gun dealers wouldn't do so either, but not all gun dealers are responsible, and not everyone with access to guns is law-abiding in the first place. Laws won't ever change that.

Well that's your right not to sell it, but where does the government derive its right to prohibit the sale is the question at issue.
 
Last edited:
Well that's your right not to sell it, but where does the government derive it's right to prohibit the sale is the question at issue.

Well, IMO the federal government doesn't have that right. That right has been reserved by the people and, to some degree, the states.

EDIT: and, yes, I'm aware of current federal restrictions on the sale of firearms. Many are unconstitutional IMO.
 
Last edited:
Well, IMO the federal government doesn't have that right. That right has been reserved by the people and, to some degree, the states.

True enough. And I agree with you that the gun dealer has a moral responsibility not to sell a gun to somebody who is unstable.
 
True enough. And I agree with you that the gun dealer has a moral responsibility not to sell a gun to somebody who is unstable.

Yep. The key is that we actively work to promote a culture of safety, knowledge, and personal responsibility concerning firearms, not look to a huge bureaucracy to fix problems it will simply be unable to fix.

The problems we have regarding gun violence and accidents can only effectively be addressed from the bottom up, not the top down.
 
Last edited:
True enough. And I agree with you that the gun dealer has a moral responsibility not to sell a gun to somebody who is unstable.

I disagree. There is no test. When I go to the range, I lie about having a mental illness and having been hospitalized. Otherwise I couldn't shoot. There are many mental illnesses, some which do require hospitalization, which have no impact on gun safety.
 
I disagree. There is no test. When I go to the range, I lie about having a mental illness and having been hospitalized. Otherwise I couldn't shoot. There are many mental illnesses, some which do require hospitalization, which have no impact on gun safety.

The idea is that the matter needs to be parsed out one on one at the point of sale, not by a bureaucracy issuing mandates barring certain groups or setting up restrictions in all cases. If there is no obvious reason for the seller to refuse the transaction then he probably won't, but if he should refuse to sell---for whatever reason---that's his right. If one particular seller wants to see medical records, tell him to **** off and give your money to the next guy... either way it should be the decision of the seller, not a federal mandate.
 
So.. they were expected to NOT use them for their own personal protection as well?

At the time, I'm sure they were. Again, they lived in an entirely different era where there were no police forces, they had little choice in the matter.

"The people" means the same in the 2nd as it does everywere else. :shrug:

Prior to the Civil War and for quite a ways beyond it in fact, "the people" meant whites and you know it. It also meant white males, specifically land owners. Learn some history.

Really. Tell us what you think of wiretapping intercontinental telephone communications from terrorists w/o first getting a warrant.

I oppose it. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?
 
even if you were right, who is the militia?

Today, the well-regulated militia is the standing military and law enforcement forces. At the time the Constitution was written, it was every free, able-bodied white male. Things change.
 
that does not have any impact on my comments though it is true

It ought to. You said "arms" meant small arms and did not apply to artillery, even though it clearly did apply to artillery at the time that the 2nd Amendment was written. You're arbitrarily defining what the 2nd Amendment means through modern sensibilities and then acting like you can pick and choose which historical realities support your claims. I've seen some real libertarian crazies argue for private ownership of nuclear weapons on the basis that private citizens of the time could own every single weapon available to them, from the most inoccuous to the most lethal. Does anyone really think that's a good idea?
 
Here is the dishonesty of the posts guy makes along with many statist politicians. They say they fully support the second amendment and t hen interpret it in ways that limit the citizenry in ways the founders would have loathed.

Stop treating the founding fathers as gods. They could not possibly have foreseen the modern world, many of the things they said and did simply cannot apply to what we deal with today. This absurd level of hero worship is ridiculous.
 
Today, the well-regulated militia is the standing military and law enforcement forces. At the time the Constitution was written, it was every free, able-bodied white male. Things change.



You are rather ignorant on the subject...


Please refer to 10 U.S.C. § 311 then come back and rejoin the conversation. Thanks.
 
No..... thats NOT the standard of scrutiny afforded to fundamental rights. Thats "Rational basis" andis the least stringent of the three levels of scrutiny.

From past experience, the freedom of speech has a rational basis applied to it, and it works just fine. I haven't heard of the three levels of scrutiny, but from what you're telling me, a rational basis is allowable, under the compelling state interest requirement, and further under the narrowly tailored requirement, it comes down to the semantics of a law.

As I have said innumerable times:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint in an infringement. Infringements are not allowed.
Bacjground checks will never pass strict scrutiny.

Screw "strict scrutiny" then. If you can convince the majority of Americans thats the basis we should proceed on, then okay. Until then, all I can say we should agree to disagree.

That's nice... but doesnt change the fact that it creates a precondition of aright not inherent to same -- and thus, an infringement.
There's no compelling state uinterest served by the government knowing who has guns.

There are plenty of compelling interests in this case. By knowing who has guns, it allows the government to promote the general welfare, and ensure domestic tranquility. Same thing when you restrict crazies and criminals from having weapons.
 
....


Screw "strict scrutiny" then. If you can convince the majority of Americans thats the basis we should proceed on, then okay. ....

.....
Do you also think Screwing Strict Scrutiny should apply to race or gender discrimintaion in employment or service in a resturant?

.
 
From past experience, the freedom of speech has a rational basis applied to it, and it works just fine. I haven't heard of the three levels of scrutiny, but from what you're telling me, a rational basis is allowable, under the compelling state interest requirement, and further under the narrowly tailored requirement, it comes down to the semantics of a law.

That's incorrect. Freedom of speech violations are going to be subject to strict scrutiny, generally. Even in the exceptions, like commercial speech, it is going to be intermediate scrutiny, not rational basis.

Fundamental rights are always going to have strict scrutiny apply.
 
Today, the well-regulated militia is the standing military and law enforcement forces. At the time the Constitution was written, it was every free, able-bodied white male. Things change.

Neither a standing army NOR everyday law enforcement can ever be a "militia." One need not "worship the Founding Fathers" to understand that you're simply categorically wrong about that.
 
Prior to the Civil War and for quite a ways beyond it in fact, "the people" meant whites and you know it. It also meant white males, specifically land owners. Learn some history.

That is a pack of gross overstatements.
 
Goobie, just read the article by Posner, all the information you request is in there.
Look -- its YOUR position and so it is up to YOU to back it up.
You claim tha the intent of the people involved in the 2nd that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, ones actions must be in direct relation to service in the militia.
To do that, you have to quote statements from those people that support that position. If your source has those quotes, then feel free to copy and paste them, but without those quotes, your argument is unsound.

Fact of the matter is, there are no quotes to that effect, you know it, and you're simply trying to dodge the issue.
 
This is a straw man and a judgement on my position because I feel it isn't unconstitutional to regulate gun sales. My brother is a hunter, I have no problem with hunting weapons.
Are there any "sniper weapons" that are not effective hunting weapons?
You ddo know that any number of "sniper rifles" are militarized hunting rifles -- right?
 
so tell me what is the difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle and a 1000M target rifle
My 1000m rife has a shiny stainless barrel.
 
At the time, I'm sure they were. Again, they lived in an entirely different era where there were no police forces, they had little choice in the matter.
You think that;s changed? That the threates facing the life, safety and welfare of the average person is so slight that they have no need of a means to defend themselves?


Prior to the Civil War and for quite a ways beyond it in fact, "the people" meant whites and you know it. It also meant white males, specifically land owners. Learn some history.
Doesnt change the fact that "the people" means the same wherever it is used.

I oppose it. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?
If you're limiting the protections of the constitution to the technology of the time it was written, then there's no way to argue that ther 4th amendment protects intercontinental telephone communicatiuons.
 
Today, the well-regulated militia is the standing military and law enforcement forces.
BY defintion, this is necessarily wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom