• 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!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

Wow a background check to buy a gun... That doesn't infringe on the Second Amendment.

Anyone can buy a gun - gun regulations don't work.
Nirvana would be no regulations on firearms except for quality control.

However, I believe that will require a revolution, and I don't think America is to that point.
 
A mag limit is like telling a woman she can only have 1 abortion every few years. Now there's very few women who will ever need more than 1 abortion within a 2-3 year time frame, but of those who do, why do you need to deny them?

There are many more people who need 30rnd mags for perfectly lawful uses then there are women who will need more than one abortion in a 2-3 year time frame.

A mag limit is also like limiting someone to a sex to marry. If they are otherwise obeying the law and are peaceable people, why do you need to limit their right to marry to only the opposite sex? Likewise, if they are otherwise obeying the law and are peaceable people, why do you need to limit the amount of ammunition a rifle will hold?

The way I see it - what is the difference? accuracy?

May as well ban individuals from being marksman next..

One guy could hit 7 with a glock, the next guy could have an AR and hit no one, so I suppose our friends with the clip argument have a point that is moot.
 
Absolutely. So, let's repeal the Hughes Amendment, and at the same time have the ATF make a "shall issue" licence which will require a 16hr class (including qualification), knowledge test, fingerprinting, and a background check every moth for the entire life of the permit. If you want a class-3 item, no problem, you just have to complete an additional approved class on that kind of firearm, have the endorsement put on your licence, and you're good to go.

As for ammunition, you would need to present this licence at the point-of-sale. If you reload your own ammunition, then you just need to present your licence when you buy supplies or equipment. We could even make it an offence to possess ammunition if you don't have a licence.

We would nee a junior version of this licence, though, just like there's a junior version of a hunting licence.

I agree and support allowing more medical agencies report a person to NICS. If someone becomes flagged, the licence will be suspended and the licence holder will have to remove the items from their possession. I know that I would be willing to hold my buddy's items if there were a problem he needed to address.

Also, we should require firearms to be stored in safes rated to prevent theft of the firearm.

I think all of this is perfectly reasonable, but the Obama Administration isn't heading in that direction. Obama is looking to disarm the public, and that's a danger to all the other rights.


You couldn't get the NRA to go along with those proposals, much less Congress.
 
Don't even try to claim "all" constitutional scholars agree with that position when many don't.


I didn't claim that all Constitutional scholars agree. That's why I said, "Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide."


Also, what constitutes a "constitutional scholar" anyways?


4 years undergrad, 3 in law school, another 2 for the masters of law.
 
Nirvana would be no regulations on firearms except for quality control.

However, I believe that will require a revolution, and I don't think America is to that point.

Around here buying a gun is like buying toothpaste. Obviously no gun dealer will sell a gun to a guy that is off his rocker, however everyone "assumes" the individual they're selling the gun to is qualified to handle it. It's not exactly a bad assumption either, especially when you're around a bunch of individuals that are responsible gun owners that can vouch for you.

Gun dealers are extremely responsible people when it comes to guns - they just won't sell anyone a gun, but when they know you they will sell you whatever you want. I suppose my point is that not anyone can just walk into a gun shop and sidestep the background check.

I don't know I can legally purchase guns, but I do buy, sell and trade them and I really haven't had a problem with that.
 
Wow a background check to buy a gun... That doesn't infringe on the Second Amendment.

Anyone can buy a gun - gun regulations don't work.


The Brady gun law requiring background checks for gun purchases was signed into law in 1994. When was it ruled to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment?
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to compromise and you aren't being reasonable.

A compromise has to be agreeable to both sides. You get the GOP to sign off on it, and we'll take a look at it!
 
I didn't claim that all Constitutional scholars agree. That's why I said, "Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide."





4 years undergrad, 3 in law school, another 2 for the masters of law.

Yeah, I don't need a decade to interpret the Bill of Rights. It doesn't take that much time to interpret a blunt and simplistic document.

Politics interprets the Bill of Rights - not the individual - the idiots in government or the Supreme Court will interpret the document anyway they see fit that promotes their agenda.

The SCOTUS shouldn't even exist.
 
Yeah, I don't need a decade to interpret the Bill of Rights. It doesn't take that much time to interpret a blunt and simplistic document.

Politics interprets the Bill of Rights - not the individual - the idiots in government or the Supreme Court will interpret the document anyway they see fit that promotes their agenda.

The SCOTUS shouldn't even exist.


Ah, an anarchist! That explains a lot!
 
The Brady gun law requiring background checks for gun purchases was signed into law in 1994. When was it ruled to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment?

I never claimed it was.

I could argue that it is tho.

Here is a good example. Should some 35-year-old man be restricted from buying a gun because when he was 18 he was caught with a pound of weed which makes him technically a felon despite the fact he has had a clean record for the last 17 years?

Should an 18-year-old kid be labeled a sex offender and a felon because he banged his 16-year-old girlfriend?

Our laws don't make any damn sense. Some people do funky **** and get caught and others do the same but don't get caught - so why the hell does a background check matter? As if the damn thing will somehow give you an insight into an individuals psyche?
 
A compromise has to be agreeable to both sides.
Remember that "agreeable" doesn't mean you like it, "agreeable" doesn't mean it only has things which you want. "Agreeable" means you can live with the parts that you don't like in exchange to receive the parts that you do like.

I don't like any licencing, I don't like training requirements, I don't like NICS, I don't like being told how I have to store my guns, I don't like the government tracking who's on what medication and tracking who buys a gun or ammo. I will live with those, however, if I can have the Hughes Amendment removed.

What about that isn't agreeable?
 
Ah, an anarchist! That explains a lot!

I'm not an anarchist, I believe in the Tenth Amendment you know - just not umbrella authority.

The federal government has zero right dictating, if they did the Tenth Amendment wouldn't exist.
 
You get the GOP to sign off on it, and we'll take a look at it!
Gun ownership is not a left/right issue, and I'm not associated with the GOP in any way, even remotely.
 
Sure, you can kill a lot of people with a handgun. The most deadly attacks are the ones committed in a closed environment that's crowded. But that doesn't change the fact that if a gun fires twice as many bullets in the same time, it is capable of twice as many casualties in the same time. I've heard your argument from a million people a million times, and I'm never impressed because I've never had anybody convince me that there is an advantage to maintaining production and sales of weapons like the Bushmaster. Disadvantage - a killer using the weapon instead of a handgun in otherwise identical circumstances will kill more people. Advantages - civilians will be able to better defend their families from large groups of organized criminals in cases of involvement with drug manufacturing/trafficking, the mafia, or ancient aliens. I mean, come one! Paranoid Americans trump common sense?

Will it save the world? No. But it could have saved some of the children who died in Newtown, and that alone would be worth making some paranoid guys in Texas angry.

what could have saved lives

1) getting rid of Miranda

2) getting rid of bail and bond

3) stop providing free attorneys to criminal defendants

4) getting rid of innocent until proven guilty

5) jailing all male blacks until the age of 40


every one of those silly suggestions would actually save more lives than your idiotic suggestion of banning guns
 
I didn't claim that all Constitutional scholars agree. That's why I said, "Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide."






4 years undergrad, 3 in law school, another 2 for the masters of law.

how many "constitutional scholars" have an Llm in constitutional law?

Not Akhil Amar-I know him well-his "masters" was his clerkship

Amar is a summa cum laude graduate of Yale College (B.A., 1980) and a graduate of the Yale Law School (J.D. 1984), where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Amar clerked for now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer when he was a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

NOt the CJ


Roberts grew up in northern Indiana and was educated in a private school before attending Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. After being admitted to the bar, he served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly and then Justice Rehnquist before taking a position in the Attorney General's office during the Reagan Administration.


Not Steven Calabresi

After graduating cum laude from Yale College in 1980,[2] he attended Yale Law School, where he was the Note & Topics Editor of the Yale Law Journal, and went on to clerk for The Hon. Robert Bork on the D.C. Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court.


Those are three of the leading constitutional experts in the USA
 
Remember that "agreeable" doesn't mean you like it, "agreeable" doesn't mean it only has things which you want. "Agreeable" means you can live with the parts that you don't like in exchange to receive the parts that you do like.

I don't like any licencing, I don't like training requirements, I don't like NICS, I don't like being told how I have to store my guns, I don't like the government tracking who's on what medication and tracking who buys a gun or ammo. I will live with those, however, if I can have the Hughes Amendment removed.

What about that isn't agreeable?


I wasn't talking about agreeable to you personally. Our laws are not made to only consider an individual. They are made to what best serves the majority of the population. The majority via their representatives will decide which laws best address the problems, and then the courts will determine if those laws are constitutional or not. That is how US rule of law works.
 
I wasn't talking about agreeable to you personally. Our laws are not made to only consider an individual. They are made to what best serves the majority of the population. The majority via their representatives will decide which laws best address the problems, and then the courts will determine if those laws are constitutional or not. That is how US rule of law works.


so of the senate fails to pass the idiotic Feinswine bill I guess you will be trumpeting its the will of the people?
 
I'm not an anarchist, I believe in the Tenth Amendment you know - just not umbrella authority.

The federal government has zero right dictating, if they did the Tenth Amendment wouldn't exist.


What's the difference between a tenther and an anarchist
 
Gun ownership is not a left/right issue, and I'm not associated with the GOP in any way, even remotely.

I'm happy for you!
 
The House ain't gonna pass any new AWB, so who cares.

But hopefully they will pass universal background checks and new magazine limits.
 
Glad we are in agreement!




You could speculate that it is. Only the courts are given judicial powers under the constitution.

The Supreme Court is the only one established by the Constitution. All other courts are merely creations of Congress and Congress can easily disband those at anytime of their choosing...
 
What's the difference between a tenther and an anarchist

if you have to ask that question, you demonstrate how little you understand of political philosophy
 
The House ain't gonna pass any new AWB, so who cares.

But hopefully they will pass universal background checks and new magazine limits.

why do you want a magazine limit-so the rest of the country has to suffer the same stupidity people in NY are under?
 
Back
Top Bottom