• 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

ataraxia said:
Not any more stupid than "you people" sound when you bring up bump stocks and high capacity magazine clips as something you "need" to protect your house or hunt bunny rabbits. Even justice Scalia has said that the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment, like any other rights, are not unlimited. Trying to make any regulation on dangerous weapons sound like it's unconstitutional makes it clear you don't even give half a **** about having a serious conversation.
Click to expand...

you gun banners constantly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding as to the DICTA that Scalia penned. There are dozens of regulations that apply to gun USE and that is more than sufficient. You all pretend that unless we support idiocy that prevents honest people from OWNING something-it means we also think there should be no laws against

1) harming someone with a firearm
2) discharging a firearm in municipalities
3) using a firearm in a dangerous or reckless manner
 
TurtleDude said:
and the Democrat party is the party of gun bans and other idiocy-which is the topic of this sub forum
Click to expand...

Hence why I don't vote Dem. They also want to restrict your right to free speech.
 
Obscurity said:
The constitution does not say you have a right to a machine gun, or a tank, or an APC. The SCOTUS in your own ruling states very clearly the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.



That's Scalia's majority opinion. Not the dissent, which obviously is full of idiocy.

So no. You have no constitutional right to own an RPG-7. Nor an APC. Nor an M60. A handgun is a regular, common use and common carry item, like a shotgun, or a semi auto rifle.
Click to expand...

so are MP-5s and M4 select fire carbines. If civilian police have it for use in our cities and on our city streets-by definition, those firearms are neither "unusually dangerous" and are useful for self defense by civilians
 
TurtleDude said:
so are MP-5s and M4 select fire carbines. If civilian police have it for use in our cities and on our city streets-by definition, those firearms are neither "unusually dangerous" and are useful for self defense by civilians
Click to expand...

I disagree. Those weapons are too expensive for many folks, meaning they are not common use. The cops have them because they have the full might of the tax payer funding them. Moreover, I don't even agree with them having them.

I'd also say a fully automatic firearm is unusually dangerous.
 
ataraxia said:
Not any more stupid than "you people" sound when you bring up bump stocks and high capacity magazine clips as something you "need" to protect your house or hunt bunny rabbits. Even justice Scalia has said that the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment, like any other rights, are not unlimited. Trying to make any regulation on dangerous weapons sound like it's unconstitutional makes it clear you don't even give half a **** about having a serious conversation.
Click to expand...

Did Scalia mention any limits on the power of the government to regulate dangerous weapons?

What weapons aren't dangerous?
 
Obscurity said:
I disagree. Those weapons are too expensive for many folks, meaning they are not common use. The cops have them because they have the full might of the tax payer funding them. Moreover, I don't even agree with them having them.

I'd also say a fully automatic firearm is unusually dangerous.
Click to expand...

They weren't expensive prior to the Hughes Amendment.
 
Obscurity said:
Geez dude, the constituents in some states don't want people owning M60 machine guns.
Click to expand...

Our civil rights aren't subject to a referendum. That why The Constitution exists: to protect us from mob rule.
 
Obscurity said:
I disagree. Those weapons are too expensive for many folks, meaning they are not common use. The cops have them because they have the full might of the tax payer funding them. Moreover, I don't even agree with them having them.

I'd also say a fully automatic firearm is unusually dangerous.
Click to expand...

they are only too expensive because the Dems implemented the Hughes Amendment.
 
Rucker61 said:
Did Scalia mention any limits on the power of the government to regulate dangerous weapons?

What weapons aren't dangerous?
Click to expand...

Unusually dangerous weapons. Of course that's up to interpretation, but an RPG-7 is not common use, it is unusually dangerous. As are, in my opinion, fully automatic weapons.
 
TurtleDude said:
they are only too expensive because the Dems implemented the Hughes Amendment.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it's because of that. But additionally, I think full automatic weapons were not common use and are, in a country with this much division and violence, unusually dangerous.
 
Obscurity said:
I disagree. Those weapons are too expensive for many folks, meaning they are not common use. The cops have them because they have the full might of the tax payer funding them. Moreover, I don't even agree with them having them.

I'd also say a fully automatic firearm is unusually dangerous.
Click to expand...

I can build an automatic AR platform for less that a thousand bucks.
 
Rucker61 said:
They weren't expensive prior to the Hughes Amendment.
Click to expand...

They weren't common use, and they were unusually dangerous, thus the amendment.
 
apdst said:
I can build an automatic AR platform for less that a thousand bucks.
Click to expand...

Most americans don't have a spare thousand bucks laying about to build a rifle. But you already knew that.
 
Obscurity said:
Most americans don't have a spare thousand bucks laying about to build a rifle. But you already knew that.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything about gun prices. Do you?
 
Obscurity said:
The constitution does not say you have a right to a machine gun, or a tank, or an APC. The SCOTUS in your own ruling states very clearly the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.
Click to expand...

None of our rights come from the Constitution. It only defines federal authority. There is nothing in the Constitution limiting the arms of the People.

Given that SCOTUS has determined that the right is not unlimited, are there any limits to the authority of the federal government?

That's Scalia's majority opinion. Not the dissent, which obviously is full of idiocy.

So no. You have no constitutional right to own an RPG-7. Nor an APC. Nor an M60. A handgun is a regular, common use and common carry item, like a shotgun, or a semi auto rifle.
Click to expand...

Why do I not have a Constitutional right to any of those? Nothing was restricted until NFA 1934. Given the restrictions of NFA 1934, ridiculous as they are, should any of the items restricted by NFA 1934 mice into the "in common use for lawful purposes" category, should they be removed from the NFA?
 
Rucker61 said:
None of our rights come from the Constitution. It only defines federal authority. There is nothing in the Constitution limiting the arms of the People.

Given that SCOTUS has determined that the right is not unlimited, are there any limits to the authority of the federal government?



Why do I not have a Constitutional right to any of those? Nothing was restricted until NFA 1934. Given the restrictions of NFA 1934, ridiculous as they are, should any of the items restricted by NFA 1934 mice into the "in common use for lawful purposes" category, should they be removed from the NFA?
Click to expand...

Your right to own unusually dangerous weapons is restricted. End of story. Or is the SCOTUS wrong here, too?

There is no right you have to own an RPG-7 or an APC.
 
apdst said:
You don't know anything about gun prices. Do you?
Click to expand...

I know that I have firearms I am happy with. I am no ammophile, buying new guns all the time and hoarding ammunition for the impending government black helicopters.
 
Obscurity said:
Well, of course it's because of that. But additionally, I think full automatic weapons were not common use and are, in a country with this much division and violence, unusually dangerous.
Click to expand...

well given that several hundred thousand have been legally owned for decades without any history of criminal misuse-your fears are unfounded. and police use counts for common use-as Scalia later noted-it would be a mistake to limit common use to private citizens because the government can then ban any new firearm and claim its not in common use
 
Obscurity said:
Well, of course it's because of that. But additionally, I think full automatic weapons were not common use and are, in a country with this much division and violence, unusually dangerous.
Click to expand...

In Caetano v Massachusetts, SCOTUS suggested that a firearm with "hundreds of thousands" sold to the public qualify as "in common use". How many machine guns do you think are registered with the ATF under NFA 1934?
 
Obscurity said:
Your right to own unusually dangerous weapons is restricted. End of story. Or is the SCOTUS wrong here, too?
Click to expand...

The restrictions on RPG-7s don't concern me, nor do the non-restrictions on owning an APC. It's the current movements to restrict firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" that are not both "dangerous and unsual", which per Caetano is the criterion.

There is no right you have to own an RPG-7 or an APC.
Click to expand...

The only reason we don't is because of laws like NFA 1934, which is blatantly unconstitutional on its face. I fear for more laws like that, mainly because we're seeing them now in various states.

NFA also says I don't have a right to a shotgun with a 17.9" barrel Do you feel that's acceptable?
 
apdst said:
The word "need" doesn't appear any where in the Bill of Rights.

Outlawing guns is unconstitutional. Confiscating private property without due process is unconstitutional.
Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about confiscating? The Reagan administration‘s ban on any further sales of new machine guns was a good model. The Trump administration’s van on the sale of bump stocks was another good example of how this works.

If you think that Trump and Reagan administration‘s actions are unconstitutional, I would recommend bringing it up with the SCOTUS. Where is the outrage?
 
ataraxia said:
Who said anything about confiscating? The Reagan administration‘s ban on any further sales of new machine guns was a good model. The Trump administration’s van on the sale of bump stocks was another good example of how this works.

If you think that Trump and Reagan administration‘s actions are unconstitutional, I would recommend bringing it up with the SCOTUS. Where is the outrage?
Click to expand...

Did you notice the thread title, or read the OP?
 
ataraxia said:
Who said anything about confiscating? The Reagan administration‘s ban on any further sales of new machine guns was a good model.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the adminstration who passed the Hughes Amendment. Why was it a good idea?

The Trump administration’s van on the sale of bump stocks was another good example of how this works.
Click to expand...

Why was the executive branch bypassing Congress to ban a device a good example of anything but executive branch overreach, especially given that the activity enabled by the bumpstock, bump firing, isn't illegal anywhere in the country?

If you think that Trump and Reagan administration‘s actions are unconstitutional, I would recommend bringing it up with the SCOTUS. Where is the outrage?
Click to expand...

Well, let's just see what the new Court comes up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom