• 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!

Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

Goshin said:
I believe the legality of government infringements on private arms should have to meet the "Strict" test of Constitutionality: that is, they should require an overwhelming societal intrest to justify the intervention; the restriction should be very narrowly targeted to address a specific problem; pre-emptive infringement should be avoided if possible (that is, restricting a law-abiding citizen just because he might commit a crime) and there should be good reason to believe that such a law will actually have beneficial effects in the real world, as opposed to simply "because some politicians want to do this."
Click to expand...

My take on it?
If you want one for hunting, then fine. Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license. The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that. Ditto for home defense. With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.

You want one for personal protection?
Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.

You want a military grade weapon?
Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
My take on it?
If you want one for hunting, then fine.
Click to expand...
Rights are not based on need, the opening premise is flawed.
Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license.
Click to expand...
No, wrong, licensing applies to priveledges, not rights, I do not have to ask the government's permission to exercise a right.
The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that.
Click to expand...
No, they shall not infringe the right to bear arms. Without compelling interest and the strictest test of scrutiny, in which none of your ideas pass, they would be overstepping their boundaries. The second amendment invalidates any "Federal shall issue gun permit" by rendering it redundant.
Ditto for home defense.
Click to expand...
Rights are not based on need.
With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.
Click to expand...
You do not need to seek permission to exercise a right.
You want one for personal protection?
Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.
Click to expand...
You do not need to demonstrate anything, it is a right.
You want a military grade weapon?
Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.
Click to expand...
All able bodied males 18-45 are considered to be the militia. But that is irrelevant, everyone has a right to bear arms, the only compromise I could see about military grade weapons would be an easily obtainable license that is inexpensive, applies universally to all military grade weaponry minus WMDs, and requires a background/psychological analysis.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Rights are not based on need, the opening premise is flawed.
Click to expand...
I never used the word "Need" I specifically said "Want". there is a difference.



No, wrong, licensing applies to priveledges, not rights, I do not have to ask the government's permission to exercise a right.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. Because the great caviet on the exercising of any right is it's impact on others. - You need permits for parades (free assembly) there are restrictions on speach (liable and slander laws etc).
The free excercise of rights is constantly being restricted. The alternative to that is what we call Anarchy.


All able bodied males 18-45 are considered to be the militia.
Click to expand...
Lets not forget to quote the whole clause, most importantly the preceeding two words prior to "Militia". Those of course being "Well" and "Regulated".


But that is irrelevant, everyone has a right to bear arms, the only compromise I could see about military grade weapons would be an easily obtainable license that is inexpensive, applies universally to all military grade weaponry minus WMDs, and requires a background/psychological analysis.
Click to expand...
That would be "Well" and "Regulated" taken care of. Now for the trifecta specified in the first four words in the darn amendment you need to be part of a militia. Which means certified recognizable verifiable organization.
Click to expand...
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
I never used the word "Need" I specifically said "Want". there is a difference.
Click to expand...
Wrong, you qualified a want with a need. "If you want one for hunting......".



Yes you do. Because the great caviet on the exercising of any right is it's impact on others. - You need permits for parades (free assembly) there are restrictions on speach (liable and slander laws etc).
The free excercise of rights is constantly being restricted. The alternative to that is what we call Anarchy.
Click to expand...
So simply owning the gun is infringing on your right how?



Lets not forget to quote the whole clause, most importantly the preceeding two words prior to "Militia". Those of course being "Well" and "Regulated".
Click to expand...
That is a secondary, it preceeds the primary clause as a qualifier, but not exclusive to that right.



That would be "Well" and "Regulated" taken care of. Now for the trifecta specified in the first four words in the darn amendment you need to be part of a militia. Which means certified recognizable verifiable organization.
Click to expand...
Going to a shooting range and maintaining your weapon are considered drilling, so that would fall as a a well regulated militia, it has NOTHING to do with government involvement or answering to drills. Again, we are all the militia, those being male 18-45 specifically charged with the duty of defense.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Wrong, you qualified a want with a need. "If you want one for hunting......".
Click to expand...
...ditto for home defence.
Thats sport and security covered. You know the real reasons you own a gun.



So simply owning the gun is infringing on your right how?
Click to expand...
Thats what the "Shall Issue" policy takes care of. Simply owning a gun doesn't, and the state can't deny you the right to own one absent a bloody good reason.



That is a secondary, it preceeds the primary clause as a qualifier, but not exclusive to that right.
Click to expand...
Which is why it's in there first....



Going to a shooting range and maintaining your weapon are considered drilling, so that would fall as a a well regulated militia,
Click to expand...
No. That falls into the catagory of "Going to the range and cleaning your weapon....

it has NOTHING to do with government involvement or answering to drills. Again, we are all the militia, those being male 18-45 specifically charged with the duty of defense.
Click to expand...
You are not the militia in the same way as everyone between the ages of 18-45 is not a hooker.

In both cases you meet the qualifications, but only a certain few actually are.
Click to expand...
 
ASSAULT WEAPONS have been banned in the US since 1974..

What the commie-gun-grabbers want you to believe is that semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon... IT IS NOT!

You can revise definitions 'till hell freezes over but only the ignorant will buy it and every day there are fewer and fewer!

For the Commie-gun-grabbers it's an EVIL Assault Weapon if:

it has a pistol grip ... ooooogh SCARY!
it has a muzzle device... ... ooooogh SCARY! (if it's up your butt)
it has a folding stock... ... ooooogh SCARY! (if you catch your finger in it that is)
it is black in color... ... ooooogh SCARY!

The irrational fear of guns by liberals is simply an example of ignorance... or puking progressive commie-gun-grabber talking points.. take your pick of the two!
 
hazlnut said:
This is overzealous...??:confused:

Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
Click to expand...

OMG. The whole, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it argument". When that is made, you KNOW what is being proposed is tyrannical and unconstitutional. It's not paperwork. I don't need to give my fingerprints or declare where my guns will be to cops. That's dumb, that's intrusive, that's none of the government's business. No sane person could endorse such a heavy handed, draconian law as that.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
...ditto for home defence.
Thats sport and security covered. You know the real reasons you own a gun.
Click to expand...
I use mine for target shooting, hope to never "need" it, because that would mean I would have to use it in a lethal manner. Again, it isn't about need, this is where your argument fails, example number two is yet another appeal to need, the right exists regardless of "need".




Thats what the "Shall Issue" policy takes care of. Simply owning a gun doesn't, and the state can't deny you the right to own one absent a bloody good reason.
Click to expand...
You don't need a shall issue, we already have "shall not be infringed".



Which is why it's in there first....
Click to expand...
There is no need for the secondary clause, that of the justification, the primary is self evident but backed by example of the secondary for good measure. Either way, the militia argument < the primary clause.




No. That falls into the catagory of "Going to the range and cleaning your weapon....
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know much about weapons training.


You are not the militia in the same way as everyone between the ages of 18-45 is not a hooker.

In both cases you meet the qualifications, but only a certain few actually are.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, there is a specific definition of the militia, thanks for playing.
 
hazlnut said:
This is overzealous...??:confused:
Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.
Click to expand...
Not that I expect a response, but...

If you're going to require a warrant...
If you're going to speak out against the government...
If you're going to go to church...
If you're going to have an abortion...

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

hazlnut
Lean: Moderate
Click to expand...
LOL
 
Last edited:
Cilogy said:
I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
Click to expand...
"Assault weapons" are like any other gun - they just -look- scary.
You can effectively use an 'assault weapon' for any legal/legitimate use you might have for a gun.
 
Deuce said:
The difference of opinion comes from what you define as "arms." While I personally hate Reductio ad absurdum, it's the only way I can ever get this across to the really hardcore conservatives. (and for the record, I am not in favor of banning handguns or even so-called "assault weapons" that are actually single-fire hunting rifles)

If you define "arms" as any sort of weapon, you're talking about legally-owned nuclear weapons in private hands. Absurd, right? Clearly the founding fathers were not referring to the ability to level a city. They were talking about our right to defend ourselves, and nukes cannot be used in self-defense in any realistic scenario!
Click to expand...
This has been addressed in 2 SCotUS decisions.
While it's upper limit is open for discussion, the term "Arms" as found in the 2nd certainly covers every class of firearms you care to mention.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Select fire. Intermediate cartrige, magazine fed.
Click to expand...
That's an assault rifle. They are covered by the NFA'34.
All 'assault weapons' are semi-auto only.
Except for those that are bolt- or pump-action, anyway.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
My take on it?
If you want one for hunting, then fine. Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license. The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that. Ditto for home defense. With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.

You want one for personal protection?
Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.

You want a military grade weapon?
Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.
Click to expand...
None of these things would pass the strict scrutiny test that applies to all constitutional rights.
 
Goobieman said:
All 'assault weapons' are semi-auto only.
.
Click to expand...

I'll take exception there... ALL "assault weapons" have bust or full auto options.. and are not legal to own without appropriate federal license.

..."semi-auto" simply means it loads without action upon firing...

Once they made assault weapons illegal in 1974 they transferred the term to semi-autos.. it is not a gunsmith term, it's a progressive gun-grabber term.
 
ConservaBill said:
I'll take exception there... ALL "assault weapons" have bust or full auto options.. and are not legal to own without appropriate federal license.
Click to expand...
No.
These are assault rifles, like the M16. These have been federally regulated since 1934.
An 'assault weapon' is a semi-auto rifle like the AR15.
 
Goobieman said:
No.
These are assault rifles, like the M16. These have been federally regulated since 1934.
An 'assault weapon' is a semi-auto rifle like the AR15.
Click to expand...

I think we agree on everything but the terminology and what to call the rifle. I don't think you'll find any of our SpecOps heroes asking for a semi-auto version to take into harms way.

IMHO, The term "assault weapon" is a political term and has nothing to do with rifles at all.. it is a term originated by gun-grabbers and perpetuated accordingly.. progressives use it to scare the ignorant. PLEASE consider not playing their game!
 
ConservaBill said:
I think we agree on everything but the terminology and what to call the rifle. I don't think you'll find any of our SpecOps heroes asking for a semi-auto version to take into harms way.
Click to expand...
They do -- the M14 series rifles are all semi-auto.:mrgreen:

IMHO, The term "assault weapon" is a political term and has nothing to do with rifles at all.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely correct -- I was simply pointing out the difference between the actual term assualt rifle and the political term 'assault weapon'.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
My take on it?
If you want one for hunting, then fine. Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license. The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that. Ditto for home defense. With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.

You want one for personal protection?
Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.

You want a military grade weapon?
Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.
Click to expand...



Oddly enough, Alvin, most states in the USA do not have these kinds of restrictions, and yet >99.98% of lawfully owned firearms are never used in any kind of crime.

I would consider such laws as you propose far too restrictive and a violation of the Second Amendment... just as I would consider such stringent restrictions on free speech a violation of the First.

If you like it like that in your country, fine... but not here.
 
hazlnut said:
This is overzealous...??:confused:

Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
Click to expand...

Big Brother Loves You

Need has nothing to do with constitutional rights

and as long as people think like you do-I do need a gun
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
LaMidRighter said:
I never used the word "Need" I specifically said "Want". there is a difference.




Yes you do. Because the great caviet on the exercising of any right is it's impact on others. - You need permits for parades (free assembly) there are restrictions on speach (liable and slander laws etc).
The free excercise of rights is constantly being restricted. The alternative to that is what we call Anarchy.



Lets not forget to quote the whole clause, most importantly the preceeding two words prior to "Militia". Those of course being "Well" and "Regulated".



That would be "Well" and "Regulated" taken care of. Now for the trifecta specified in the first four words in the darn amendment you need to be part of a militia. Which means certified recognizable verifiable organization.
Click to expand...

LOL another person clueless about what well regulated means in the context of the amendment.

You are so wrong it is not funny. If you were right the second part of the amendment would say the right of the state to keep and arm militias shall not be infringed

since you seem so well versed in the constitution, point me to the clause that delegated-to the federal government-the power to regulate small arms

me-I only taught the subject at a couple law schools

you?
Click to expand...
 
chevydriver1123 said:
I shouldnt need to fill out paperwork in order to exercise a right.
Click to expand...

especially when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that doing such a thing actually promotes any LEGITIMATE public good

(harassing honest people or justifying the existence of some parasitic bureaucrat are not legitimate goods)
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Select fire. Intermediate cartrige, magazine fed.
Click to expand...

That's not select fire.
Select fire would make it an automatic or 3 short burst.

It fires a 22 cartridge, which is not intermediate.

What difference does it make that it is magazine fed?
You do know that the vast majority of crimes are committed with hand guns, don't you?

000017.JPG


What about these two?
What's wrong with them?
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Oddly enough, Alvin, most states in the USA do not have these kinds of restrictions, and yet >99.98% of lawfully owned firearms are never used in any kind of crime.

I would consider such laws as you propose far too restrictive and a violation of the Second Amendment... just as I would consider such stringent restrictions on free speech a violation of the First.

If you like it like that in your country, fine... but not here.
Click to expand...

Ours are much more restrictive.
The one above is the oft cited Swiss method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom