• 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!

Trump Retreats, Again, on Guns

Obscurity said:
Rights come with responsibilities. Why is the 2nd amendment the one where no one wants to apply any responsibilities?
Click to expand...

that's a stupid throwaway line. The federal government is one of limited powers and statists cannot create government powers that don't properly exist based on their belief that citizens should exercise rights responsibly
 
aociswundumho said:
Wickard. The Supreme Idiots ruled that growing wheat on your own farm for the sole purpose of feeding your own livestock has a "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce". Same "logic" found in Raich to prevent you from growing weed for yourself. You selling a gun to another person means he didn't buy a gun on the open market, and hence the sale had an effect on interstate commerce.

The liberal regulatory state is probably the worst thing the left has imposed on the American people.
Click to expand...

that idiocy was rolled back in Lopez and if you read the Obama care decision (which only passed because Roberts decided to pretend it was a tax-in direct contradiction with the Obama administration position), the commerce clause expansion was rejected by five justices
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I don’t care as much about how background checks are mandated, just that they are.
Click to expand...


LETS DO SOMETHING -even if it is unconstitutional and won't do a damn thing
 
notquiteright said:
I have NO idea what you are smoking, but you need to stop.

ALL FFLs are REQUIRED to conduct NICS checks BEFORE selling ANY firearm that qualifies for such a check. Alaska is not excluded, in fact in 2016 had the most multiple firearm checks in the nation. Another fun fact, Alaska had the 4th highest number of background checks on the PRIVATE sale of rifles in 2016.... :shock:

Now because you seem a bit confused its a FEDERAL firearms license that retail vendors have to have, not a STATE license so the state of Alaska has ZERO (0) say in the NCIS and mandatory background checks.... :peace
Click to expand...

I don't have to buy or sell my firearms via an FFL holder in Alaska. I can, if I want. Or I can just buy from, or sell to, whomever I please, or I can just give away my firearms as a gift. And I can do all of that without background checks. There is no requirement in Alaska that I have to buy or sell a firearm via an FFL holder because they recognize that imposition would be an infringement against my individual right. Nor can Congress require anyone to purchase or sell their firearms via an FFL holder.
 
element94 said:
I'm not the OP. What I want to believe is he will do something further to impact mass shootings. What is happening already to impact that is not working. He should stand up like a sane leader to make sure of an impact, but what is he doing? Nothing.
You seem to want to believe he is doing something to make an impact on this subject, well, he's not, in spite of appearing he could possibly give a ****... he doesn't. Actions speak louder than words. There will be no action, and you know how you can tell? He's backing up on it, talking in circles, and refusing to commit.
Click to expand...

Of course he's doing nothing; the millions that the NRA are pouring into his campaign fund will ensure he continues to do nothing.
 
TurtleDude said:
its fun watching people who haven't a clue pretend that the NRA exists to serve corporations that make guns. This bs is a based on two items that are near and dear to the left wing-hating corporate America and guns. But its complete crap and it is hilarious watching anti gun rights posters talking about scaremongering and disinformation, given that is the foundation of the anti gun movement
Click to expand...

Complete crap, you say? How many millions of dollars of 'incentives' do you think the gun makers 'donate' to the NRA? Here, allow me to help...

This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider

Gun Industry Financial Support of NRA | Violence Policy Center
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a stupid throwaway line. The federal government is one of limited powers and statists cannot create government powers that don't properly exist based on their belief that citizens should exercise rights responsibly
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think rights have certain caveats; like you cannot vote if you're a felon. Not that I agree with it, but if we're going to restrict who can vote based on what they do, then, to be puritanical, we should disarm those who are a threat to society.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Constitutionality is debatable, and considering that SCOTUS has let stand numerous states laws requiring background checks (and NICS), it looks like you’re on the losing side of the debate.

As for effectiveness; View attachment 67262343
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2017-nics-operations-report.pdf
There are a whole lot of folks denied firearms purchases that would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

What is your point-I have said chicken little hysterics want SOMETHING to be done. Most of what they want is worthless and in many cases, designed to harass people who aren't the problem.
 
Obscurity said:
I disagree. I think rights have certain caveats; like you cannot vote if you're a felon. Not that I agree with it, but if we're going to restrict who can vote based on what they do, then, to be puritanical, we should disarm those who are a threat to society.
Click to expand...

a guy who burned his draft card during Nam or a 18 year old kid who got a blow job from his 17 year old girl friend after Prom, or a guy who altered an expired insurance card to renew his driver's license are all people who are not a threat to society via owning a gun
 
TurtleDude said:
a guy who burned his draft card during Nam or a 18 year old kid who got a blow job from his 17 year old girl friend after Prom, or a guy who altered an expired insurance card to renew his driver's license are all people who are not a threat to society via owning a gun
Click to expand...

Nor did I say they are, but, they are not allowed to vote, are they?

So, if they cannot vote, are we going to be puritanical, or not?
 
Obscurity said:
Nor did I say they are, but, they are not allowed to vote, are they?

So, if they cannot vote, are we going to be puritanical, or not?
Click to expand...

most states they can because that is a state issue, but federally they cannot own a gun
 
TurtleDude said:
Cite me the Supreme court decision that actually supports the nonsense you spewed. How does the commerce clause-in light of the Court's recent reticence to expand it to non-economic actions (Lopez for example) -allow the federal government to demand that private citizens engaged in second hand sales that are prohibited to be INTER-STATE, conduct background checks when the only source of authority is based on the expanded concept of interstate commerce that 5 justices rejected in the Obama Care case?
Click to expand...

Sigh, I get that you love to wrap yourself up in your versions of 2nd amendment 'rights'

How about Montana's firearm freedom act??? That was an attempt to nullify the Federal laws on firearm manufacture and sales in-state and theoretically not subject to interstate regulations. That was shot down (excuse the expression) by the court of appeals and never even made it to the Supreme Court.

As we have discussed at other times Supreme Court Justices have stated no right is without limits- said as an aside- but the message was clear to many- not to you perhaps, but to the rest of us.

I doubt any neutral scholar would attempt to compare the ACA case to the FFL issue....

But how about we test this in the courts... :peace
 
Obscurity said:
Do you have proof it is "most states?"
Click to expand...

No but You can find it out as fast as I can with google-I was merely pointing out the difference.
 
notquiteright said:
Sigh, I get that you love to wrap yourself up in your versions of 2nd amendment 'rights'

How about Montana's firearm freedom act??? That was an attempt to nullify the Federal laws on firearm manufacture and sales in-state and theoretically not subject to interstate regulations. That was shot down (excuse the expression) by the court of appeals and never even made it to the Supreme Court.

As we have discussed at other times Supreme Court Justices have stated no right is without limits- said as an aside- but the message was clear to many- not to you perhaps, but to the rest of us.

I doubt any neutral scholar would attempt to compare the ACA case to the FFL issue....

But how about we test this in the courts... :peace
Click to expand...

Ah still trying to attack those who don't support the progressive agenda while pretending not to be anti gun

tell us-given you want to pretend you are a constitutional scholar-do you agree with the FDR expansion of the commerce clause that allowed congress to actually regulate what private citizens did solely within their own states?
 
notquiteright said:
Sigh, I get that you love to wrap yourself up in your versions of 2nd amendment 'rights'

How about Montana's firearm freedom act??? That was an attempt to nullify the Federal laws on firearm manufacture and sales in-state and theoretically not subject to interstate regulations. That was shot down (excuse the expression) by the court of appeals and never even made it to the Supreme Court.

As we have discussed at other times Supreme Court Justices have stated no right is without limits- said as an aside- but the message was clear to many- not to you perhaps, but to the rest of us.

I doubt any neutral scholar would attempt to compare the ACA case to the FFL issue....

But how about we test this in the courts... :peace
Click to expand...

Nice try, but your deliberate lies don't cut it here. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 10-36094) overturned the District Court's ruling that held that the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) had no standing, allowing MSSA v. Holder to proceed to the Supreme Court. In February 2014 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

The Montana Firearm Freedom Act is very much intact and still being enforced. As it is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Wyoming will even arrest any federal agent attempting to impose federal regulations on firearms or firearm accessories manufactured, possessed, and used wholly within Wyoming.
 
Obscurity said:
States That Allow People Convicted of Felonies to Vote

Seems you are incorrect. Only 2 states allow actual felons to vote, while 19 allow parolees to vote.
Click to expand...

you missed my point because you are more interested in contrarian arguments than understanding the fact that the ban on felons is national. You also seem ignorant that felons means both those in prison and those who have completed their sentences and your statistics are thus WRONG. You googled something and didn't even read what it said. so your naming two states prove you didn't even understand what you cited and what I said
 
TurtleDude said:
you missed my point because you are more interested in contrarian arguments than understanding the fact that the ban on felons is national. You also seem ignorant that felons means both those in prison and those who have completed their sentences and your statistics are thus WRONG. You googled something and didn't even read what it said. so your naming two states prove you didn't even understand what you cited and what I said
Click to expand...

So you get proven wrong, then you say I am wrong?

Hilarity ensues.
 
Obscurity said:
So you get proven wrong, then you say I am wrong?

Hilarity ensues.
Click to expand...



under 18 USC 922-a felon is any one who was convicted of a felony even if that was forty years ago and such a person cannot legally own a firearm due to FEDERAL Law

In many states, people who have been convicted of a felony can vote. The federal government does not have a blanket prohibition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom