• 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!

challenge - party movement based on gun control

N

Nuber

DP Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
504
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This post was in another thread and generated interest to extend the debate in a more appropriate forum - only the comment about not starting the debate in the incorrect thread was removed.

Let's use one of your examples of party movement, gun control, and place it on the ruler I was talking about. At the founding, gun control didn't exist. Guns were tools that were widely considered necessary for survival. Automatic weaponry didn't exist, nor did multi-shot weaponry.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue was at the 6" mark. Since the founding, where would you place a marker on the ruler for the issue of gun control? To the left (closer to 1") or to the right (closer to 12")? I would suggest that such a mark would be placed at 3", but over time the liberal ideal has been to move it to 1" (no guns) and the conservative movement has been trying to preserve gun rights that we have had since the founding.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue is not far right vs. far left, it is far left vs. center - historically speaking. The gun control issue is a perfect example of what I am talking about. legislation came about in the 1930's after over a century of private gun ownership and moved the marker to the left. Automatic weapons have now been banned for so long that many conservatives don't have a problem placing restrictions on gun sales, having registrations and background checks, or restricting certain kinds of guns from being manufactured. Both parties have now moved to the left on that ruler.

The mark on that ruler is now nowhere close to 6" because the liberal party tends to want more restrictions and the conservative party wants the status quo. The compromise of politics over time ultimately gives the liberal party what they want.

Please note that I am not trying to have a debate with you about gun control. My point is that both parties have moved to the left historically speaking (and my timeline is much longer than 2012).
 
Nuber said:
This post was in another thread and generated interest to extend the debate in a more appropriate forum - only the comment about not starting the debate in the incorrect thread was removed.

Let's use one of your examples of party movement, gun control, and place it on the ruler I was talking about. At the founding, gun control didn't exist. Guns were tools that were widely considered necessary for survival. Automatic weaponry didn't exist, nor did multi-shot weaponry.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue was at the 6" mark. Since the founding, where would you place a marker on the ruler for the issue of gun control? To the left (closer to 1") or to the right (closer to 12")? I would suggest that such a mark would be placed at 3", but over time the liberal ideal has been to move it to 1" (no guns) and the conservative movement has been trying to preserve gun rights that we have had since the founding.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue is not far right vs. far left, it is far left vs. center - historically speaking. The gun control issue is a perfect example of what I am talking about. legislation came about in the 1930's after over a century of private gun ownership and moved the marker to the left. Automatic weapons have now been banned for so long that many conservatives don't have a problem placing restrictions on gun sales, having registrations and background checks, or restricting certain kinds of guns from being manufactured. Both parties have now moved to the left on that ruler.

The mark on that ruler is now nowhere close to 6" because the liberal party tends to want more restrictions and the conservative party wants the status quo. The compromise of politics over time ultimately gives the liberal party what they want.

Please note that I am not trying to have a debate with you about gun control. My point is that both parties have moved to the left historically speaking (and my timeline is much longer than 2012).
Click to expand...

Gun rights today are more expansive than they ever have been
 
Crovax said:
Gun rights today are more expansive than they ever have been
Click to expand...

not really. up until 1934 citizens were able to own firearms easily that were the equal or superior to the standard issued military arm
 
Nuber said:
This post was in another thread and generated interest to extend the debate in a more appropriate forum - only the comment about not starting the debate in the incorrect thread was removed.

Let's use one of your examples of party movement, gun control, and place it on the ruler I was talking about. At the founding, gun control didn't exist. Guns were tools that were widely considered necessary for survival. Automatic weaponry didn't exist, nor did multi-shot weaponry.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue was at the 6" mark. Since the founding, where would you place a marker on the ruler for the issue of gun control? To the left (closer to 1") or to the right (closer to 12")? I would suggest that such a mark would be placed at 3", but over time the liberal ideal has been to move it to 1" (no guns) and the conservative movement has been trying to preserve gun rights that we have had since the founding.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue is not far right vs. far left, it is far left vs. center - historically speaking. The gun control issue is a perfect example of what I am talking about. legislation came about in the 1930's after over a century of private gun ownership and moved the marker to the left. Automatic weapons have now been banned for so long that many conservatives don't have a problem placing restrictions on gun sales, having registrations and background checks, or restricting certain kinds of guns from being manufactured. Both parties have now moved to the left on that ruler.

The mark on that ruler is now nowhere close to 6" because the liberal party tends to want more restrictions and the conservative party wants the status quo. The compromise of politics over time ultimately gives the liberal party what they want.

Please note that I am not trying to have a debate with you about gun control. My point is that both parties have moved to the left historically speaking (and my timeline is much longer than 2012).
Click to expand...

I don't know if you want to add this to your ruler. But I grew up in the 1950's and the only gun control law I can remember is that one had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun. Thanks largely to Al Capone and the Mafia and their hits in the 20's and 30's. I wasn't but 12 or 13 and it was legal for me to ride my bike into town and buy shells for my .410 at the Western Auto. One could buy guns through catalogs, no such things as registrations or background checks.

Just in my lifetime that mark of yours has really moved up the ruler. At least 9 if not a 10. It seems once a gun control law is passed, there is no rolling it back. That is unless the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional.
 
Perotista said:
I don't know if you want to add this to your ruler. But I grew up in the 1950's and the only gun control law I can remember is that one had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun. Thanks largely to Al Capone and the Mafia and their hits in the 20's and 30's. I wasn't but 12 or 13 and it was legal for me to ride my bike into town and buy shells for my .410 at the Western Auto. One could buy guns through catalogs, no such things as registrations or background checks.

Just in my lifetime that mark of yours has really moved up the ruler. At least 9 if not a 10. It seems once a gun control law is passed, there is no rolling it back. That is unless the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

the biggest problem is if the supreme court were to properly rule that the commerce clause didn't allow gun control then all those programs people rely on would be in deep trouble. Social security, Medicare etc
 
Crovax said:
Gun rights today are more expansive than they ever have been
Click to expand...

Not actually. Until 1927, you could order handguns through the mail to your home. Until 1934, you could buy a fully automatic firearm ar the hardware store. Until 1968, you could order any long gun through the mail to your home. Until 1992, there was no background check for purchases.
 
TurtleDude said:
not really. up until 1934 citizens were able to own firearms easily that were the equal or superior to the standard issued military arm
Click to expand...

Except in states where they didn't let them. Many states hand handgun bans through the 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
Crovax said:
Except in states where they didn't let them. Many states hand handgun bans through the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Click to expand...

Cite for states with handgun bans on ownership.
 
Rucker61 said:
Cite for states with handgun bans on ownership.
Click to expand...

Sorry missed a word in there, (typing on my phone) handgun carrying bans. And it's pretty much a fact that until heller that legally there was no individual RKBA. Despite what some states allowed others were more harsh and restrictive than what all citizens enjoy as a right today.
 
Crovax said:
Sorry missed a word in there, (typing on my phone) handgun carrying bans.
Click to expand...

Does the few million people who now CCW but couldn't before outweigh the loss of the ability of tens of millions to purchase guns without government interference or oversight? That would be a tough argument as to whether gun rights are more expansive now since those guns still need to be vetted by the government, as do the cast majority of those who carry.

And it's pretty much a fact that until heller that legally there was no individual RKBA.
Click to expand...

It's not a fact at all. It's the complete opposite of a fact. See US v Cruikshank.

Despite what some states allowed others were more harsh and restrictive than what all citizens enjoy as a right today.
Click to expand...

Concealed carry isn't a right, nor is it treated as a right in most states.
 
Rucker61 said:
Does the few million people who now CCW but couldn't before outweigh the loss of the ability of tens of millions to purchase guns without government interference or oversight? That would be a tough argument as to whether gun rights are more expansive now since those guns still need to be vetted by the government, as do the cast majority of those who carry.



It's not a fact at all. It's the complete opposite of a fact. See US v Cruikshank.



Concealed carry isn't a right, nor is it treated as a right in most states.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point

US v Cruikshank said:
The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution
Click to expand...
 
Crovax said:
Thank you for proving my point
Click to expand...

No right is granted by the Constitution. Nice cherry oicking, though.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
 
Rucker61 said:
No right is granted by the Constitution. Nice cherry oicking, though.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Click to expand...

Maybe you should do some more reading because that sentence doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
Crovax said:
Maybe you should do some more reading because that sentence doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

It means what it means. The RKBA isn't dependent upon the Constitution, which it predates, or any SCOTUS decision based upon the Constitution. Heller certainly affirmed it at the federal level; it had been affirmed many times at the state constitutional level both prior and subsequent to the BOR. Arguing standard model vs collective model is a losing proposition with regards to increasing gun control.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
 
Rucker61 said:
It means what it means. The RKBA isn't dependent upon the Constitution, which it predates, or any SCOTUS decision based upon the Constitution. Heller certainly affirmed it at the federal level; it had been affirmed many times at the state constitutional level both prior and subsequent to the BOR. Arguing standard model vs collective model is a losing proposition with regards to increasing gun control.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
Click to expand...

Again you are missing the point just because many states did give people the ability to own guns it was not an individual right guaranteed to all (legally speaking) until this past decade.
 
Crovax said:
Again you are missing the point just because many states did give people the ability to own guns it was not an individual right guaranteed to all (legally speaking) until this past decade.
Click to expand...

You can certainly claim that; Heller merely affirmed that the right existed. It could not create the right.
 
Crovax said:
Gun rights today are more expansive than they ever have been
Click to expand...

Not even close. The first anti gun legislation was the '30's Auto licensing bill. which included more than just full autos. Notably the suppressor, as a way to get the feds involved in poaching. I made my first gun purchase in the early '50's. A revolver. I was 15 YO and walked into the store, plunked down my fifteen bucks, walked out with the gun concealed in my pocket. Impossible today.

What has changed in the last 25 years is the gun owners fighting back when the left tries incrementalism. Hopefully that will never reverse itself.
 
Nuber said:
This post was in another thread and generated interest to extend the debate in a more appropriate forum - only the comment about not starting the debate in the incorrect thread was removed.

Let's use one of your examples of party movement, gun control, and place it on the ruler I was talking about. At the founding, gun control didn't exist. Guns were tools that were widely considered necessary for survival. Automatic weaponry didn't exist, nor did multi-shot weaponry.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue was at the 6" mark. Since the founding, where would you place a marker on the ruler for the issue of gun control? To the left (closer to 1") or to the right (closer to 12")? I would suggest that such a mark would be placed at 3", but over time the liberal ideal has been to move it to 1" (no guns) and the conservative movement has been trying to preserve gun rights that we have had since the founding.

Using the ruler analogy, the gun control issue is not far right vs. far left, it is far left vs. center - historically speaking. The gun control issue is a perfect example of what I am talking about. legislation came about in the 1930's after over a century of private gun ownership and moved the marker to the left. Automatic weapons have now been banned for so long that many conservatives don't have a problem placing restrictions on gun sales, having registrations and background checks, or restricting certain kinds of guns from being manufactured. Both parties have now moved to the left on that ruler.

The mark on that ruler is now nowhere close to 6" because the liberal party tends to want more restrictions and the conservative party wants the status quo. The compromise of politics over time ultimately gives the liberal party what they want.

Please note that I am not trying to have a debate with you about gun control. My point is that both parties have moved to the left historically speaking (and my timeline is much longer than 2012).
Click to expand...

What moved was the technology and the observation of the vast resultant increases in damage to society, endless killing, and suffering. I think we can all agree you should have unfettered access to single shot muzzle loading shot guns and pistols.
 
Fenton Lum said:
What moved was the technology and the observation of the vast resultant increases in damage to society, endless killing, and suffering. I think we can all agree you should have unfettered access to single shot muzzle loading shot guns and pistols.
Click to expand...

Do you also think that the government should have free access to your electronic communications and stored data?

Actually, many multi-shot firearms were in existence at ratification: Pepperbox revolver, superposed musket, Belton repeating rifle, Girandoni rifle, Puckle gun, etc.

According to Randy Roth, the homicide rate in colonial America was much higher than it is today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...hat_was_the_murder_rate_in_the_13_us_british/
 
Rucker61 said:
Do you also think that the government should have free access to your electronic communications and stored data?

Actually, many multi-shot firearms were in existence at ratification: Pepperbox revolver, superposed musket, Belton repeating rifle, Girandoni rifle, Puckle gun, etc.

According to Randy Roth, the homicide rate in colonial America was much higher than it is today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...hat_was_the_murder_rate_in_the_13_us_british/
Click to expand...

You can have those too, k? Ah, well, nevermind then, nevermind the homocide rate, it's acceptable. Why of course the govt should have free access to our electronic communications and stored data, they label folks as "traitors" just for telling us they are!
 
Fenton Lum said:
You can have those too, k? Ah, well, nevermind then, nevermind the homocide rate, it's acceptable.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming that the homicide rate is acceptable. We just disagree on the best way to keep reducing it.

Why of course the govt should have free access to our electronic communications and stored data, they label folks as "traitors" just for telling us they are!
Click to expand...

Governments outlast the party in charge.
 
Rucker61 said:
No one is claiming that the homicide rate is acceptable. We just disagree on the best way to keep reducing it.



Governments outlast the party in charge.
Click to expand...

I have yet so see any element of this society that really gives a **** about reducing it at all, that's denial. As for your govt, you have the illusion of two parties, but your donor/"job creator" class always has it covered "either" way, Goldman Sachs is always in your white house regardless of electoral outcomes. The mass surveillance state ramped up continuously over both the Bush and Obama administrations, locate a clue.
 
Rucker61 said:
You can certainly claim that; Heller merely affirmed that the right existed. It could not create the right.
Click to expand...

I never said it did but the point was that until Heller legally speaking there was no individual RKBA and depending on how you view it there wasn't the actual individual right until the 14th amendment
 
Crovax said:
I never said it did but the point was that until Heller legally speaking there was no individual RKBA and depending on how you view it there wasn't the actual individual right until the 14th amendment
Click to expand...

Interesting claim. In the 2nd Amendment, where it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", is that not an individual right or is it a collet I've right? If not for the individual, for whom is that right protected?
 
Crovax said:
Except in states where they didn't let them. Many states hand handgun bans through the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Click to expand...

many states had handgun bans? really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom