• 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 control

Slingshot Bob said:
Good question, most voters cannot name the classes of prohibited persons. This guy is from the UK so that is kinda understandable.

US voters have no excuse.
Click to expand...

Nor do our elected officials....
 
As an Australian I feel similarly. Firearms are too heavily restricted here, but I wouldn't want US-style gun control either. I'd like to see a certification process to own a gun for self-defense, with annual training on safe handling, target shooting, cleaning and maintenance, legal obligations, mental health assessment, first aid etc. needed to own a firearm. Even before our gun ban, Australia didn't have a gun culture on the same scale as the US, and guns were, and still are, used almost exclusively for farming, hunting and land management.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Good question, most voters cannot name the classes of prohibited persons. This guy is from the UK so that is kinda understandable.

US voters have no excuse.
Click to expand...

its amazing how many voters-including many who are not slow witted dullards-who fell for the lies that the VPC inspired the MSM to push when the VPC told its willing minions in the press to confuse the sheeple over what an "assault weapon" is with a machine gun.
 
spud_meister said:
As an Australian I feel similarly. Firearms are too heavily restricted here, but I wouldn't want US-style gun control either. I'd like to see a certification process to own a gun for self-defense, with annual training on safe handling, target shooting, cleaning and maintenance, legal obligations, mental health assessment, first aid etc. needed to own a firearm. Even before our gun ban, Australia didn't have a gun culture on the same scale as the US, and guns were, and still are, used almost exclusively for farming, hunting and land management.
Click to expand...

the big problem is Spud, is that on the surface many would see those requirements as reasonable even though putting such conditions upon a constitutional right is anathema to those of us who actually think the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. The big problem is-if you put such conditions on ownership, those conditions will be used by those who want to ban gun ownership to ban gun ownership. Its like the "literacy tests" imposed on voters in the Jim Crow era where blacks with PhDs or JDs "flunked" the tests while some guy with a third grade education but who was a Kleagel in the Klan easily "passed".
 
TurtleDude said:
the big problem is Spud, is that on the surface many would see those requirements as reasonable even though putting such conditions upon a constitutional right is anathema to those of us who actually think the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. The big problem is-if you put such conditions on ownership, those conditions will be used by those who want to ban gun ownership to ban gun ownership. Its like the "literacy tests" imposed on voters in the Jim Crow era where blacks with PhDs or JDs "flunked" the tests while some guy with a third grade education but who was a Kleagel in the Klan easily "passed".
Click to expand...

For Australia, not for the US. Our constitution guarantees no rights, and such restrictions would be an improvement on what we already have.
 
spud_meister said:
For Australia, not for the US. Our constitution guarantees no rights, and such restrictions would be an improvement on what we already have.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. If I were lord of the known world, I would decree that law abiding citizens would be able to own the same type of firearms that their own civilian police are issued and make that the laws of all the lands.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't disagree with that. If I were lord of the known world, I would decree that law abiding citizens would be able to own the same type of firearms that their own civilian police are issued and make that the laws of all the lands.
Click to expand...

Own the same type of firearms that their own civilian police are issued??

Let's get this proposition on all 50 states in 2018.

Better yet, lets either amend the 2nd or go for a 28th to agree with you !!
 
NIMBY said:
Own the same type of firearms that their own civilian police are issued??

Let's get this proposition on all 50 states in 2018.

Better yet, lets either amend the 2nd or go for a 28th to agree with you !!
Click to expand...

actually all we have to do is to enforce the second amendment as defined in MILLER, HELLER and McDonald. if a civilian police department has a firearm, that by definition means the firearm is not UNUSUALLY Dangerous. and since automatics are in common use by civilian police departments that meets the COMMON USE requirement. and since MILLER held that firearms useful for the militia are protected and since McDonald applied the second amendment to the states, we have all the case law we need
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom