• 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!

U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063239655 said:
I also received the best firearm training I ever acquired from my father. I was under his watchful eye from age 6 until being allowed to go out on my own with a firearm at about age 11. By then handling a firearm safely was second nature to me, and he knew it.

Then passing any test on strictly firearm safety ought to be a snap for you! Some certifications require a bit of law as well. but sounds like you have a good start.
 
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.

gun nuts being the low wattage ninnies who are afraid of honest people being armed? or worse yet, whine about gun ownership because they don't like the politics of most gun owners
 
I never mentioned crime. A gun is a deadly machine, deadly machines in public should require permits that require proof of knowledge of safety, laws, rules, and ability to use the machine. "Well regulated" militia, ie regulations are not only allowed but required. And don't give me any bull**** about supposedly "well regulated" not meaning well regulated.

Regardless of your usual slant. To decry a course prior to a CCW permit is idiotic and the view of the extreme right wing nutjobs.

that's moronic-well regulated applies to militia not individuals. And your distrust of fellow citizens is really nutty
 
When I was cc'd in Vancouver WA before moving to Idaho, I went through training and a background check. Now is that because it was a police officer down the street who assisted me in getting cc'd or was it the law? That I can't say for sure. I assumed it was the law. Nonetheless, there's never a harm in requiring people who legally want to be able to operate a deadly machine in a public place to take a test to show reasonable knowledge of the laws, the policies, and the operation of said machine.

In this case that would even include a bicycle. People have died riding those. Should we require 4-5 year olds to get a training permit? I know, that was an extreme example. But when you use generalities like you did here it sorta naturally leads to such.

I have no problem requiring that people go through training. It makes sense. But I think that the state should provide such training free of charge. A weeks worth of trianing at most would most definitely cover what people NEED to know. No Right should cost money paid to the government to exercise.
 
But the words "well regulated" do. I think there's a huge difference between what should the gun laws be and what should the gun laws be allowed to be. IMO, SCOTUS isn't the place to make gun laws.

Well regulated refers to the militia, not The People in general.
 
In this case that would even include a bicycle. People have died riding those. Should we require 4-5 year olds to get a training permit? I know, that was an extreme example. But when you use generalities like you did here it sorta naturally leads to such.

I have no problem requiring that people go through training. It makes sense. But I think that the state should provide such training free of charge. A weeks worth of trianing at most would most definitely cover what people NEED to know. No Right should cost money paid to the government to exercise.
The training course was one day in class, one hour at the range. Cost was $30, certainly reasonable. Why should the taxpayers pay your way? Pay your own way.
 
`
The judicial branch of the federal government has every constitutional right to decline to see a case. Congress is trying to force the judicial to do what they are elected to do: Pass laws.

how is this a congressional issue when it was about a state infringement on the 2A?
 
The training course was one day in class, one hour at the range. Cost was $30, certainly reasonable. Why should the taxpayers pay your way? Pay your own way.

In some states it's more than $200. And more than 1 day.

And the "processing" periods are up to 18 months long...which is complete obstructionist bull****.
 
In some states it's more than $200. And more than 1 day.

And the "processing" periods are up to 18 months long...which is complete obstructionist bull****.

I agree with that. I've never said the rules should be allowed to be unreasonable. Boy, you sure are exaggerating what I'm saying to try to make counterpoints to points I've never presented or embraced.
 
The training course was one day in class, one hour at the range. Cost was $30, certainly reasonable. Why should the taxpayers pay your way? Pay your own way.

Because having a gun is a right. If you require someone to pay for an ID to vote, that is considered an infringement of the right to vote...even if that ID only costs 1 dollar. Why should it be ANY different for guns?

BTW, I'm all for voter ID laws...but I also recognize that the State should have to pay for those ID's along with any other costs incured in order to get the ID so as not to disenfranchise any voters.
 
Actually to use a chain saw in public, yes you do. Sorry.
I've used all manor of chainsaw in construction (from clearing land to simple pruning) and I've never heard of ever needing a permit to use one.
 
I've used all manor of chainsaw in construction (from clearing land to simple pruning) and I've never heard of ever needing a permit to use one.
On a private piece of property where you were invited to utilize it. Try going onto public land and getting caught using one to say gather the year's firewood. Or go downtown and decide to trim up a tree or such.

That said, chain saws aren't considered "deadly" machines such as cars and guns are since very few incidents of chain saw deaths occur and are mostly accidents.
 
On a private piece of property where you were invited to utilize it. Try going onto public land and getting caught using one to say gather the year's firewood. Or go downtown and decide to trim up a tree or such.

That said, chain saws aren't considered "deadly" machines such as cars and guns are since very few incidents of chain saw deaths occur and are mostly accidents.
We have prisoners clear the underbrush throughout the Black Hills. Are you saying these prisoners have to get a permit when they use a chainsaw to clear state-owned land?

If so, are you saying prisoners should be able to wield firearms and perform armed jobs on public land? You would be OK with an armed prisoner as a game warden checking your rifles for hunting compliance?
 
On a private piece of property where you were invited to utilize it. Try going onto public land and getting caught using one to say gather the year's firewood. Or go downtown and decide to trim up a tree or such.

That said, chain saws aren't considered "deadly" machines such as cars and guns are since very few incidents of chain saw deaths occur and are mostly accidents.

Umm, if you go onto the forrest service to gather wood for the years firewood you don't need a permit to run a chainsaw. You need a permit to gather wood. Hence why they're called "Wood Permits" and not "Chainsaw permits".

By the by...no response to my post 110?
 
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

Discussion?

Article is here.
If the SCOTUS will not defend an article from the Bill of Rights, then is seems to me that it ought to be disbanded and another, more functional Court put in place.

Come to think of it, it seems like a good idea to replace every member of the Court after a small number of years, say ten.
 
gun nuts being the low wattage ninnies who are afraid of honest people being armed? or worse yet, whine about gun ownership because they don't like the politics of most gun owners
`
There is a legitimate, logical and rational expectation to assume any legislative or judicial move to limit gun ownership and usage, would trigger a violent reaction from the gun nuts.
 
I don't like this MAY issue business. Here in California we are MAY issue, my wife and I both have our CA permits as we live in an issue friendly county. Friends and family in other counties don't have a snowballs chance of getting a permit.
Another thought I keep in the back of my head is even though my permit is good statewide, if I happen to find myself carrying in a county that does not issue, what would a simple traffic stop be like with an officer not accustomed to seeing a CA permit?

I don't understand the comment a few pages back claiming upstate NY and NYC should have different carry laws. I value my life the same regardless of the zip code I happen to be in at the moment.
 
`
There is a legitimate, logical and rational expectation to assume any legislative or judicial move to limit gun ownership and usage, would trigger a violent reaction from the gun nuts.

like Sarah Brady who claimed that liberalizing CCW permits would cause blood to flow in the streets, you have engaged in a bit of dishonesty. When the brady bill was passed was there violence? how about the moronic Clinton gun ban?

as I say gun nuts are the ones who whine about gun owners
 
like Sarah Brady who claimed that liberalizing CCW permits would cause blood to flow in the streets, you have engaged in a bit of dishonesty. When the brady bill was passed was there violence? how about the moronic Clinton gun ban?
as I say gun nuts are the ones who whine about gun owners
`
Dropping the "gun nuts" disparaging moniker, it still comes down to the point that a large segment of particular gun owners have voiced enough potential violence should anyone threatened their guns rights, that they now represent a clear and present danger to society as a whole.
 
That is a wonderful way of saying absolutely nothing. This is a matter of treating what many (legitimately?) feel is a constitutional right as a felony - we all know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Do you also think modest amounts of slavery (they will call it privatization of community service, of course) are OK in local jurisdictions? How about laws that bend the Miranda rights just a tad?

Inner cities have some of the highest gun violence rates. Are there any gun rights groups handing out handguns in the streets? Is there a gun owner in the country who would lend a firearm to a random passer by? Of course not. That's because no one actually believes that it would be good for everyone to have a gun.

Gun rights advocates try to make a principled argument, but when it comes down to it; they believe regulation is needed, they just think it's a lot less than what a gun control advocate would want. That is a policy debate. Turning it into a constitutional question means that there is no policy debate; the government cannot restrict arms. Anyone would be free to take a handgun anywhere. How could the FAA ban handguns on planes if a state didn't have the authority to issue CC permits?

There is a legitimate policy debate about how much regulation is needed; and how much is counter productive. But a wide sweeping free for all is certainly not in anyone’s interest. The language is strange, but the second amendment is written as reason; result. You can't read just half of it. Flip the clauses and it reads better. The right for the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because the state has a need for a well regulated militia.

None of us want everyone to have a gun. What we really want is for responsible people who know what they're doing to have a gun.
 
that's moronic-well regulated applies to militia not individuals. And your distrust of fellow citizens is really nutty

And yet that distrust of their fellow citizens is EXACTLY why many 'gun nuts' demand ARs and high cap mags- because they fear an armed biker gang attacking their house... :doh
 
Inner cities have some of the highest gun violence rates. Are there any gun rights groups handing out handguns in the streets? Is there a gun owner in the country who would lend a firearm to a random passer by? Of course not. That's because no one actually believes that it would be good for everyone to have a gun.

None of us want everyone to have a gun. What we really want is for responsible people who know what they're doing to have a gun.

Cheap useless examples. No one is 'giving out handguns' anywhere. If they were, I'd be in line. And hand my gun to a stranger? Sure....."hi, I need to put down that deer I just hit with my car...." It all depends.

And the last sentence....do you understand what a right is at all? Hell, that's my sentiment exactly about people reproducing but I dont get any choice in what others do with their reproductive organs. Same with free speech. How about voting? Sure, we'd ALL like to see only 'responsible' people exercising their rights. Me, I'd love to have every person who texts and drives locked up for life and their assets sold to pay for it (or the parents of teens pay). But ya know, I have to live with the personal liberties of others to ensure my own are not restricted unfairly.

You might want to read my signature, in blue.
 
Inner cities have some of the highest gun violence rates. Are there any gun rights groups handing out handguns in the streets?

Can you list any gun laws, proposed or imagined, that would keep guns out of inner cities? Aside from national confiscation...and then the inner cities would STILL have guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom