• 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-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

apdst said:
Infringement on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments.
Click to expand...
Why would that be? Do insane people have a constitutional right to own guns?
 
Thoreau72 said:
What is an assault weapon? Do you have any of the definitions used in that lapsed statute? Any definitions at all that meet a minimum standard for relevance and accuracy?
Click to expand...

It can be anything the legislation considers an assault weapon that conforms to Heller. We could define it in any way we want and adapt as gun owners and manufacturers work to circumvent the law. If it were up to me, no weapon could fire more then 6 rounds without reloading manually via some very laborious means. That would allow for a revolver but not a clip with 30 rounds in it. Make it very, very hard to reload quickly.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Where is the language in any of those bills showing it to be regulating a militia? There is none, thanks for the specious nonsense.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment is about regulating a militia. It says nothing else really.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Texas now requires a LTC whether the (loaded) handgun is carried openly or concealed (with a few confusing exceptions). Essentially, Texas has converted a Constitutional right into a mere state issued privilege.
Click to expand...

That is because of the major cities. Another situation of mob rule where the majority vote away the rights of the few or the individual. Democracy at work. Because you have a problem in a crime riddled city vote laws that effect people who live 500 miles away with no such problem.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is that your new term for allowing states to initiate Constitutional rights rental agreements?
Click to expand...

No. I think states can and should retain the right to regulate firearms. If a state and it's inhabitants don't want people owning rpg7 and ak-47 rifles that are full auto, then I think they should retain the right to regulate that.

What I disagree with is the restriction of rights via fiat. What I mean by this is like NJ. NJ claims to be a will issue state however it will only issue a carry permit tk you if your an leo or security of some sort.

I think states have the right and authority to restrict what types of firearms they want their constituency owning but not the right to restrict or regulate our ability to own and carry firearms.

This is the same stance I take on abortion. Everyone deserves equal access but states ought to be allowed to say within reason when an abortion not be allowed.

I generally take a reasonable approach to these rights. I am no extremist in that regard.
 
Vadinho said:
It can be anything the legislation considers an assault weapon that conforms to Heller. We could define it in any way we want and adapt as gun owners and manufacturers work to circumvent the law. If it were up to me, no weapon could fire more then 6 rounds without reloading manually via some very laborious means. That would allow for a revolver but not a clip with 30 rounds in it. Make it very, very hard to reload quickly.
Click to expand...

We all know what an assault weapon is. It's a full auto magazine fed rifle designed for mobile infantry use. It's designed to have capacity lower than. But more mobile than a light machine gun. This amplified the firepower of each individual infantryman.
 
MTAtech said:
Why would that be? Do insane people have a constitutional right to own guns?
Click to expand...

Insane people have the same civil rights as you do. Or, do you believe civil rights are conditional and the government should be able to remove a person, or group's civil rights legislatively?
 
Obscurity said:
No. I think states can and should retain the right to regulate firearms. If a state and it's inhabitants don't want people owning rpg7 and ak-47 rifles that are full auto, then I think they should retain the right to regulate that.

What I disagree with is the restriction of rights via fiat. What I mean by this is like NJ. NJ claims to be a will issue state however it will only issue a carry permit tk you if your an leo or security of some sort.

I think states have the right and authority to restrict what types of firearms they want their constituency owning but not the right to restrict or regulate our ability to own and carry firearms.

This is the same stance I take on abortion. Everyone deserves equal access but states ought to be allowed to say within reason when an abortion not be allowed.

I generally take a reasonable approach to these rights. I am no extremist in that regard.
Click to expand...

Should the states be able to regulate the press and establish religion?
 
Vadinho said:
The 2nd amendment is about regulating a militia. It says nothing else really.
Click to expand...

It absolutely says something else:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
 
Vadinho said:
It can be anything the legislation considers an assault weapon that conforms to Heller. We could define it in any way we want and adapt as gun owners and manufacturers work to circumvent the law. If it were up to me, no weapon could fire more then 6 rounds without reloading manually via some very laborious means. That would allow for a revolver but not a clip with 30 rounds in it. Make it very, very hard to reload quickly.
Click to expand...

That would get people killed in a self defense sitiation, because the bad guy will still be able to get his hands on a semi-auto with a normal capacity magazine.

The clown that shot up that newspaper in Maryland use a pump shotgun with a 3-5 round capacity; very laborious to reload. So much for your plan.
 
apdst said:
Should the states be able to regulate the press and establish religion?
Click to expand...


The press/media is regulated. So is artistic expression. Parents guidance warnings, the refusal to allow profanity on the radio, etc. Look at how atheists are regulated off of the airwaves in red States.

Religion is also regulated. Look how many red States emphasize Christianity over everything else.

You need to step outside of this judeochristian ethno perspective.
 
TurtleDude said:
if only left-wingers who claim to be independents, cared about the bill of rights and the rights actually enumerated as they do for court created rights to abortion and homosexual relationships.
Click to expand...

All men are created equal, do we agree on that point, yes the founding fathers said. Now on to slavery, I have five for sale, anyone interested? You can check their teeth. Maybe it's a good thing those court created rights? The folks on the right use the constitution as a weapon where in my opinion it should be a living document, like a river, always flowing and changing.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
That is because of the major cities. Another situation of mob rule where the majority vote away the rights of the few or the individual. Democracy at work. Because you have a problem in a crime riddled city vote laws that effect people who live 500 miles away with no such problem.
Click to expand...

That is because the 2A means whatever they pass will not be questioned before the SCOTUS. So long as the NRA gets its cut of the action (via mandatory NRA prerequisite training courses) then they won't rock the boat.
 
Obscurity said:
The press/media is regulated. So is artistic expression. Parents guidance warnings, the refusal to allow profanity on the radio, etc. Look at how atheists are regulated off of the airwaves in red States.

Religion is also regulated. Look how many red States emphasize Christianity over everything else.

You need to step outside of this judeochristian ethno perspective.
Click to expand...

There isn't a single law regulating the press. I challenge you to show it to us.
 
Obscurity said:
No. I think states can and should retain the right to regulate firearms. If a state and it's inhabitants don't want people owning rpg7 and ak-47 rifles that are full auto, then I think they should retain the right to regulate that.

What I disagree with is the restriction of rights via fiat. What I mean by this is like NJ. NJ claims to be a will issue state however it will only issue a carry permit tk you if your an leo or security of some sort.

I think states have the right and authority to restrict what types of firearms they want their constituency owning but not the right to restrict or regulate our ability to own and carry firearms.

This is the same stance I take on abortion. Everyone deserves equal access but states ought to be allowed to say within reason when an abortion not be allowed.

I generally take a reasonable approach to these rights. I am no extremist in that regard.
Click to expand...

Hmm... should states, counties or cities also be allowed to lower the MW to $4.20/hour? Should states, counties or cities be allowed to require a "reasonable" user fee for getting a public defender permit? Equal protection does not mean that your gun becomes illegal when you enter a different state, county or city. The 2A is a Constitutional right of the people - the people do not vary based on their current location.
 
bongsaway said:
All men are created equal, do we agree on that point, yes the founding fathers said. Now on to slavery, I have five for sale, anyone interested? You can check their teeth. Maybe it's a good thing those court created rights? The folks on the right use the constitution as a weapon where in my opinion it should be a living document, like a river, always flowing and changing.
Click to expand...

All men aren't created equal. Colonel Colt made all men equal.
 
apdst said:
That would get people killed in a self defense sitiation, because the bad guy will still be able to get his hands on a semi-auto with a normal capacity magazine.

The clown that shot up that newspaper in Maryland use a pump shotgun with a 3-5 round capacity; very laborious to reload. So much for your plan.
Click to expand...

True but your argument is that each of us is in an arms race with each other. It is indeed a problem for any sensible gun control legislation to deal with the installed base of high capacity weapons. I suggest an amnesty period for registration, buy back or perhaps even confiscation. While I cannot understand why any hunter would need a high capacity clip, I do understand it is fun to shoot these guns. So should the greater society allow them in the hands of anyone because some of us, responsible gun owners, love blowing **** up? That is a very poor reason IMHO. Let us all agree on first principles. I would argue that no one wants guns in the hands of irresponsible people that have no training. Start there. Then stop the loop holes that circumvent whatever methods are put in place. Then make it a federal crime to ignore them or go around them. Lastly, force gun makers to make safe guns. There are technologies available to secure weapons. Lets be smart because we sure as hell are not going to repeal the 2nd and Scalia made Heller into something that will be hard to over turn.
 
Vadinho said:
True but your argument is that each of us is in an arms race with each other. It is indeed a problem for any sensible gun control legislation to deal with the installed base of high capacity weapons. I suggest an amnesty period for registration, buy back or perhaps even confiscation. While I cannot understand why any hunter would need a high capacity clip, I do understand it is fun to shoot these guns. So should the greater society allow them in the hands of anyone because some of us, responsible gun owners, love blowing **** up? That is a very poor reason IMHO. Let us all agree on first principles. I would argue that no one wants guns in the hands of irresponsible people that have no training. Start there. Then stop the loop holes that circumvent whatever methods are put in place. Then make it a federal crime to ignore them or go around them. Lastly, force gun makers to make safe guns. There are technologies available to secure weapons. Lets be smart because we sure as hell are not going to repeal the 2nd and Scalia made Heller into something that will be hard to over turn.
Click to expand...

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.

Law enforcement doesn't have the balls to make drug raids on street gangs. They sure as hell aren't going make gun raids on those same gangs.

And all the while law abiding gun citizens will be left to be preyed upon by those same outlaws, because we'll no longer have a way to protect ourselves from people who have us outgunned.

Claiming that gun control is "for the greater good" is either a lie for those who know better and stupidity for those who don't.
 
apdst said:
There isn't a single law regulating the press. I challenge you to show it to us.
Click to expand...
Ok.

Broadcast decency act of 2005.
NYT vs US 1971 underscores the right of a state to censor media if it infringes on national security.

There are hate speech laws which also infringe on a free press.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... should states, counties or cities also be allowed to lower the MW to $4.20/hour? Should states, counties or cities be allowed to require a "reasonable" user fee for getting a public defender permit? Equal protection does not mean that your gun becomes illegal when you enter a different state, county or city. The 2A is a Constitutional right of the people - the people do not vary based on their current location.
Click to expand...


And? It's also a right which is restricted in some capacities. Like entering a court house with a firearm.

Rights come with responsibilities.

Minimum wage is a federal standard minimum. States have all the freedom in the world to go above it. If you want to pay slave wages employ illegals. We all know Republicans are ok with that.
 
Obscurity said:
1) And? It's also a right which is restricted in some capacities. Like entering a court house with a firearm.

2) Rights come with responsibilities.

3) Minimum wage is a federal standard minimum. States have all the freedom in the world to go above it. If you want to pay slave wages employ illegals. We all know Republicans are ok with that.
Click to expand...

1) Having a 'gun free zone' does not make anyone's gun illegal to own.

2) Yep, having a 'gun free zone' should come with the responsibility to enforce it with adequate security measures.

3) So are the demorats or we would have universal, mandatory E-Verify to prevent that from happening.
 
Obscurity said:
No. I think states can and should retain the right to regulate firearms. If a state and it's inhabitants don't want people owning rpg7 and ak-47 rifles that are full auto, then I think they should retain the right to regulate that.

What I disagree with is the restriction of rights via fiat. What I mean by this is like NJ. NJ claims to be a will issue state however it will only issue a carry permit tk you if your an leo or security of some sort.

I think states have the right and authority to restrict what types of firearms they want their constituency owning but not the right to restrict or regulate our ability to own and carry firearms.

This is the same stance I take on abortion. Everyone deserves equal access but states ought to be allowed to say within reason when an abortion not be allowed.

I generally take a reasonable approach to these rights. I am no extremist in that regard.
Click to expand...

Not true about NJ. My brother in law and neice and nephew all applied 2 yrs ago. They had to jump thru some humiliating hoops to exercise their "right" IMO (they had to have 3 written personal references!) but they werent connected to LE in any way. They all got their permits.
 
noonereal said:
OMFG, and where are they gonna get them?

Freakin ridiculous rhetoric from the wingnuts.
Click to expand...

So true!

Heroine and cocaine are illegal and no one has those!

Alcohol was banned and nobody had wine or spirits then!

:doh:doh:doh
 
Lursa said:
So true!

Heroine and cocaine are illegal and no one has those!

Alcohol was banned and nobody had wine or spirits then!

:doh:doh:doh
Click to expand...

God Bless you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom