• 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!

The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

penn1954 said:
Background checks were never required in the Constitution!!!
Click to expand...

No one is saying that the Constitution REQUIRES background checks....but there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them. Certainly not the second Amendment. No RIGHT is absolute. The Constitution ONLY requires that any infringement on a right has to be supported by a compelling governmental interest.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Unitedwestand13 said:
I highly doubt it. Single issue elections are rare and 2014 is still a while away.

And this issue will not die.
Click to expand...
You have to go back to the history of the issue, the only Democrats who survived the '94 elections after the AWB were in the bluest of districts and the sweep was massive, it was the first time in a generation that the GOP controlled Congress in both houses. The issue is dying, and handily.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
How are background checks against the Constitution?
Click to expand...

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you have difficulty grasping? All FFL dealers are already required to perform BGCs before making the transfer of a regulated item, but this is done through the bastardization of the Commerce clause...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No one is saying that the Constitution REQUIRES background checks....but there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them. Certainly not the second Amendment. No RIGHT is absolute. The Constitution ONLY requires that any infringement on a right has to be supported by a compelling governmental interest.
Click to expand...

Disagree !! The Constitution limits government not the people !!
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

penn1954 said:
Disagree !! The Constitution limits government not the people !!
Click to expand...

Absolutely....but if you understood Constitutional Law, you would know that no right is ABSOLUTE. The Constitution absolutely places limits on the government...which requires the government to have a compelling interest in the infringement.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Goshin said:
While I'm not really dead-set against expanding background checks to some degree, on the whole I'm glad this went down in flames.... if you let the camel's nose in the tent, pretty soon the whole camel will be trying to come in.

WOOT!! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Boys and girls, can anyone tell me why Goshin is part of the problem?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

lizzie said:
If that is true, then I would say that 93% of Americans don't understand the implications fully.
Click to expand...
It's obvious bull, if they had that percentage the Democrats would go for an amendment codifying their BGC scheme because that would mean they have the consent of the people, and they would be protected from charges that they are engaging in unconstitutional attacks. I've read those polls and their methodology stinks.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

AlabamaPaul said:
Good afternoon pg. I believe it was 54-46, but I haven't looked up the breakdown of the vote....
Click to expand...

:thanks: AP.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
The implications of a background check? Oh....do tell......does that mean that "Obama's coming to take their guns!!!!"....
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It just means one more little step toward registration, which I vehemently oppose.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Absolutely....but if you understood Constitutional Law, you would know that no right is ABSOLUTE. The Constitution absolutely places limits on the government...which requires the government to have a compelling interest in the infringement.
Click to expand...

The govt has no compelling interest in my background.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No one is talking about "taking away a right"....that is just ridiculous radical rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You use quotes as though that's what I said.

Voter ID requirements don't "take away" the right to vote, and solid majorities support them, so I guess that has to make it OK in your eyes, yes? Any opposition to them would be "ridiculous radical rhetoric," then, yes? I mean, I do assume you're on board with it. You'd have to be.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Cardinal said:
Boys and girls, can anyone tell me why Goshin is part of the problem?
Click to expand...


:lamo

I'll bite, why am I part of the problem, at least from your perspective?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
No one is saying that the Constitution REQUIRES background checks....but there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them. Certainly not the second Amendment. No RIGHT is absolute. The Constitution ONLY requires that any infringement on a right has to be supported by a compelling governmental interest.
Click to expand...

So...where is this compelling government interest to deny private citizens their right to privacy?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

lizzie said:
Not necessarily. It just means one more little step toward registration, which I vehemently oppose.
Click to expand...

Because registration is ...oh....so .....difficult. Wow.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Goshin said:
:lamo

I'll bite, why am I part of the problem, at least from your perspective?
Click to expand...
Because you won't just comply with the desires of temporary leaders is my guess.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Cardinal said:
Boys and girls, can anyone tell me why Goshin is part of the problem?
Click to expand...

Only reason I /liked this post is due to the hilarity it gave me. :lamo
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Goshin said:
:lamo

I'll bite, why am I part of the problem, at least from your perspective?
Click to expand...

First, do you think that, in and of itself, background checks are good in principle?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Harshaw said:
You use quotes as though that's what I said.

Voter ID requirements don't "take away" the right to vote, and solid majorities support them, so I guess that has to make it OK in your eyes, yes? Any opposition to them would be "ridiculous radical rhetoric," then, yes? I mean, I do assume you're on board with it. You'd have to be.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to voter ID laws, as long as the process to get the ID is made easily available at no cost to everyone...and while we are at it, we should allow people to register to vote at the same time (which funny...but not surprizingly.....most of the supporters of voter ID laws are against....how come?)
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Kal'Stang said:
Funny how that percent keeps getting bigger and bigger every time I see it lol.
Click to expand...

123% of Americans support it!
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Kal'Stang said:
Only reason I /liked this post is due to the hilarity it gave me. :lamo
Click to expand...

Even if it was only for entertainment value I'm glad I could help.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Because registration is ...oh....so .....difficult. Wow.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about difficulty. I said I vehemently oppose it. If you can't understand why, then that pretty much explains your position on the issue.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
I'm not opposed to voter ID laws, as long as the process to get the ID is made easily available at no cost to everyone...and while we are at it, we should allow people to register to vote at the same time (which funny...but not surprizingly.....most of the supporters of voter ID laws are against....how come?)
Click to expand...

Yet you fully support making people pay for background checks done on them? More: :lamo
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

rocket88 said:
123% of Americans support it!
Click to expand...
Actually, the number just revised up to 150%, wait, 200%, wait.............
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

lizzie said:
I said nothing about difficulty. I said I vehemently oppose it. If you can't understand why, then that pretty much explains your position on the issue.
Click to expand...

There is no legitimate reason to oppose registration. Sorry. We have to register our cars...registering guns is a no brainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom