• 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!

Gun rights advocates rally in Washington, Virginia

I like your term. The concept is one I have professed for a long time. Ultimately, most folks couldn't care less about what happens unless it affects them and the inner circle in which they live. Unfortunately, what most folks don't realize is that we are all connected in some way, and what affects some, affects others... and so on. Humans by their very nature are self-focused, and though social beings, are not socially process oriented. What one gets out of things is often as far as one can see.
Many of the perceptions liberals and conservatives have of each other is a result of the above. I don't think you will find an honest conservative that would say our actions only affect ourselves, however the main disagreements of government action versus personal responsibility get in the way. While I think most of us have good intentions we disagree over who needs to carry the burden. All this leads us to argue while the idiots in charge make things worse.
 
Overly simplistic. ;)


Granted. It's a very handy term though.

Sheep aren't all that bright. They tend to engage in group-think. They tend to run whichever way the herd runs, even if they don't know why or if it is a good idea. They don't give much thought to anything beyond their herd, food, drink, and sex... and tend to take those for granted.

Seems to describe a lot of human beings.
 
Many of the perceptions liberals and conservatives have of each other is a result of the above. I don't think you will find an honest conservative that would say our actions only affect ourselves, however the main disagreements of government action versus personal responsibility get in the way. While I think most of us have good intentions we disagree over who needs to carry the burden. All this leads us to argue while the idiots in charge make things worse.

I would agree, for the most part. Most sane folk understand that the solution is a combination of personal responsibility and government action.

This is why, in jest, I often say, take all the extremists of each political lean, line them up against a wall and execute them, and then let the rest of us normal folk run the place. Less bickering, more action, fewer idiots around to piss in the soup, who care less about making things better, but only care about winning.
 
This is why, in jest, I often say, take all the extremists of each political lean, line them up against a wall and execute them, and then let the rest of us normal folk run the place.

Kill all the people who want to kill all the people!

(In jest.)
 
Not if I am able to speak in full.



Those are different things. Those aren't prior restraint, they're just restraint. Assuming those regulations are constitutional, a background check to make sure someone meets them certainly is. It's simply verifying. If you're under 18 and can't vote yet, it's not prior restraint on the right to vote to check your ID beforehand, even if you're actually over 18.




So 1st amendment is absolute, but the 2nd isnt? Jeesh. :doh
 
Granted. It's a very handy term though.

Sheep aren't all that bright. They tend to engage in group-think. They tend to run whichever way the herd runs, even if they don't know why or if it is a good idea. They don't give much thought to anything beyond their herd, food, drink, and sex... and tend to take those for granted.

Seems to describe a lot of human beings.

worried about wolves and envious of well-fanged sheep dogs, sheep gladly trade the small chance of being wolf bait on the range for the security and comfort of the farmer's pens==a nice environment where food is plenty, the wolves are kept out and the dogs are never seen

Of course when the farmer wants some wool or mutton--well a sheep might get away from the wolf but never the farmer.
 
No, you aren't restrained from buying a gun due to a background check, unless you fail it.
False.
You cannot exercise the right until you undergo the check, which is based on the premise that you might be breaking the law when trying to buy the gun. Once it is determined that you aren't dong anything illegal, you are allowed to buy the gun.

This is no different than th government preventing the publishing of a new story on the premise that it might contain slaner/libel, and then allowing the publication after no libel/slander is found.

Thus, it is prior restraint.
 
False.
You cannot exercise the right until you undergo the check, which is based on the premise that you might be breaking the law when trying to buy the gun. Once it is determined that you aren't dong anything illegal, you are allowed to buy the gun.

This is no different than preventing the publishing of a new story on the premise that it might contain slaner/libel, and then allowinf the publication after no libel/slander is found.

Thus, it is prior restraint.

But there is no criminal law against libel or slander, nor can there be. There are criminal laws against gun posession by certain people.

Is checking an ID before you vote also prior restraint of the right to vote?
 
Those are different things. Those aren't prior restraint, they're just restraint. Assuming those regulations are constitutional...
Big assumption, as they are preconditions to a right not inherent to same, are not a compeling statre interest, and not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

It's simply verifying. If you're under 18 and can't vote yet, it's not prior restraint on the right to vote to check your ID beforehand...
Yes... but verifying your ID not the same thing as a background check.
 
But there is no criminal law against libel or slander, nor can there be. There are criminal laws against gun posession by certain people.
So? This does nothing to negate what I said; background checks are indeed a form of prior restraint.

Prior restraint covers more than libel/slander, BTW -- those were just examples that I picked.
 
Yes... but verifying your ID not the same thing as a background check.

Pretty much. It's a verification that you are legally entitled to something.
 
Pretty much. It's a verification that you are legally entitled to something.
No.,. its a verification that you are who you say you are, and nothing more. In no way does it make any determination that you arent trying to do something illegal.
 
No.,. its a verification that you are who you say you are, and nothing more. In no way does it make any determination that you arent trying to do something illegal.

Right. It verifies that you are legally entitled to something. In the case of voting rights, it verifies that you are who are - because the state already has your data on file in the voter registration rolls.

We could do the same for guns, and have a big database showing who is already legally entitled to a gun, but the NRA would freak out about it.
 
Right. It verifies that you are legally entitled to something.
No.... -that- is an extra step. That step is where prior restraint comes in, and background checks certainly fall under that.

The equivocation you're trying to argue here in no way negates the argument that background checks are a form or prior restraint.
 
No.... -that- is an extra step. That step is where prior restraint comes in, and background checks certainly fall under that.

The equivocation you're trying to argue here in no way negates the argument that background checks are a form or prior restraint.

If so, so is checking your ID before you vote though.
 
If so, so is checking your ID before you vote though.
Incorrect, for the reasons already noted.

AND it STILL does nothing to negate the argument that background checks are prior restraint; you know you cannot ngate that argument and so are forced to obsufcate and misdirect.

You don't think that background checks are a form of prior restraint?
It certainly seems that way. I have shown how they are; sack up and show how I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Sheeple. :mrgreen:

mmb7N.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom