• 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!

[W:195]Wexton bill would use credit card data to track firearms purchases

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO it's a clear violation od the 4th to require fingerprints on any and all persons who choose to exercise a right. Just as requiering fingerprinting to vote, attend a religious service, or exercise your free speech would be ruled unconstitutional. When it comes to CCW the state of GA views that as a privilege, I disagree with that viewpoint but that's a different discussion. With CCW viewed as a privilege the state can impose a fingerprinting requirement, but if you don't want to be fingerprinted you can still exercise your right and have a firearm for hunting or home protection in GA without submitting any fingerprinting information. That is the major difference on why fingerprinting for a CCW could be viewed as constitutional, but fingerprinting to exercise any form of ownership would not.

Photo ID is required to vote in Georgia

I don't recall any state trying to impose fingerprinting to validate a voter - can you provide details of such a ruling ?


I can't see how the 4th amendment can prevent a future US government to require a photo ID for a permit to bear arms. I don't see how this photo ID can't contain data like fingerprints to prove you are eligible to bear a firearm.
 
So people should lose their rights because of accidents? Or somebody else's criminal Behavior? Seems a very chilling nod to authoritarianism.

Sorry, you weren't aware of this ?


that's a military she's the difference is militia is non-military. The first crew would be different word.

I'm sorry but anyone with a gun even without a can become militia. Militia is a civilian Force.

Not according to the SC ruling that ruled that anyone (over a certain age) in the USA can bear arms - it even ruled there is no maxim age like the militia may have

This is because it deemed that everyone is a member of the militia

Timothy McVeigh had a military?


He used a massive bomb, not something a civilian usually just picks up but something you would expect only the military to have



...and that's totally the same thing as people fighting for their rights.

He thought so, he thought he was opposing tyranny



See why it doesn't matter what you think?

No


because people just own guns illegally like they do with everything else that's illegal to own.

Then those guns need to be confiscated too


you can call me whatever name she wants it really doesn't matter.


"She" ?

Sorry but to claim that a good portion of America will rise up in civil war to protect the right to have guns is pure fantasy.

You might have some lunatics like McVeigh but most will stand in line and meekly hand over their guns. You included.
 
Photo ID is required to vote in Georgia
And photo id is required to buy a gun from any dealer. Both are to verify identity.
I don't recall any state trying to impose fingerprinting to validate a voter - can you provide details of such a ruling ?
None that I know of because it would be unconstitutional.
I can't see how the 4th amendment can prevent a future US government to require a photo ID for a permit to bear arms. I don't see how this photo ID can't contain data like fingerprints to prove you are eligible to bear a firearm.
I can.
 
And photo id is required to buy a gun from any dealer. Both are to verify identity.

None that I know of because it would be unconstitutional.

I can.


So fingerprints can be used to verify identity, what's the difference.

OK, how can the 4th amendment be so used.
 
So fingerprints can be used to verify identity, what's the difference.

OK, how can the 4th amendment be so used.

Requiering fingerprints without a warrant would be an illegal search and seizure. Wanting to exercise your right is not crime therefore requiering someone to submit fingerprints in order to do so would be unconstitutional.
 
Requiering fingerprints without a warrant would be an illegal search and seizure. Wanting to exercise your right is not crime therefore requiering someone to submit fingerprints in order to do so would be unconstitutional.

What is being searched and what is being seized ?

What is the difference between photographing you (taking an image of your face) and taking an image of your fingerprints ?
Finger printing you these days is really just taking a digital image.
 
What is being searched and what is being seized ?

What is the difference between photographing you (taking an image of your face) and taking an image of your fingerprints ?
Finger printing you these days is really just taking a digital image.

Having to submit fingerprints and have them run threw a database to prove you haven't committed a crime before you can exercise your rights is not how the US system works.
 
What shootings will be prevented by the fingerprints?

None. It's about creating an unnecessary burden to discourage people from exercising a right.
 
Having to submit fingerprints and have them run threw a database to prove you haven't committed a crime before you can exercise your rights is not how the US system works.

*through


What about having to submit to having your face photographed before you can vote ?

What's the difference ?
 
*through


What about having to submit to having your face photographed before you can vote ?

What's the difference ?

Is that picture run through any database to prove you haven't committed a crime?
 
Is that picture run through any database to prove you haven't committed a crime?

It's there to be used as such, as is a fingerprint image.

There was a case recently where as escaped felon was caught by facial recognition of (I believe) a Florida driving license database.
 
Sorry, you weren't aware of this ?
no I'm just not in favor of living under the fourth Reich not interested. You can find places that I like that I recommend North Korea I hear it's cold in the winter



Not according to the SC ruling that ruled that anyone (over a certain age) in the USA can bear arms - it even ruled there is no maxim age like the militia may have
what do you mean when you say the militia?



He used a massive bomb,
how is a bomb a military? I have a friend serving in the military is he a bomb?
not something a civilian usually just picks up but something you would expect only the military to have
well it's illegal to possess explosives like that without extensive licensing. It's almost like he didn't care about the law and just killed people anyway almost like bomb control didn't work.




He thought so, he thought he was opposing tyranny
why does it matter what he thought?




I'll explain in this will explain the issue just above you can think something and not be correct.



Then those guns need to be confiscated too
but they're not so donuts getting my gun would just make me the victim of someone who has a gun that you can't confiscate.




"She" ?

Sorry but to claim that a good portion of America will rise up in civil war to protect the right to have guns is pure fantasy.
I doubt your claim.
You might have some lunatics like McVeigh but most will stand in line and meekly hand over their guns. You included.
I doubt this claim too
 
no I'm just not in favor of living under the fourth Reich not interested. You can find places that I like that I recommend North Korea I hear it's cold in the winter

So's Minnesota (cold in Winter that is)

You think it's the 4th Reich to take someone's guns following an accident or negligent discharge where someone was wounded or killed ?


what do you mean when you say the militia?

More to the point, what did the SC mean - the adult population of the USA (less those banned from owning firearms like convicted felons etc)

how is a bomb a military?

Civilians don't normally have bombs
The military do.

well it's illegal to possess explosives like that without extensive licensing.

So what? Criminals don't obey laws by definition


It's almost like he didn't care about the law and just killed people anyway almost like bomb control didn't work.

Err, I'd say he didn't care about the law


why does it matter what he thought?

Because many, including you, spout nonsense about a civil war. McVeigh thought he was opposing his government. He felt it was his right. So the question is, are you OK with a citizen unilaterally deciding when to take up arms against his government ?


I'll explain in this will explain the issue just above you can think something and not be correct.

Huh ?


but they're not so donuts getting my gun would just make me the victim of someone who has a gun that you can't confiscate.

Excuse 2.2


I doubt your claim.

You mean you fantasize


I doubt this claim too


Nope, you'll be there standing in line...all your big talk will be nothing but hot air.
 
So's Minnesota (cold in Winter that is)

You think it's the 4th Reich to take someone's guns following an accident or negligent discharge where someone was wounded or killed ?
No, but to suggest to take away everyone's got because of some incident is.



More to the point, what did the SC mean - the adult population of the USA (less those banned from owning firearms like convicted felons etc)



Civilians don't normally have bombs
The military do.
how is a bomb a military?


So what? Criminals don't obey laws by definition




Err, I'd say he didn't care about the law




Because many, including you, spout nonsense about a civil war. McVeigh thought he was opposing his government. He felt it was his right. So the question is, are you OK with a citizen unilaterally deciding when to take up arms against his government ?




Huh ?




Excuse 2.2




You mean you fantasize





Nope, you'll be there standing in line...all your big talk will be nothing but hot air.
Doubt your claim.
 
What shootings will be prevented by the fingerprints?

That's a good point - even though I don't think anyone has said, fingerprinting in particular and registration in general won't stop mass shootings where a shooter probably expects to die anyway, the fact that details are on file might dissuade some people not to commit a crime as there was an increased possibility they might not get away with it.

The idea was that registration/fingerprinting would make law enforcement - particularly detective work - easier and more crimes would therefore be solved.
 
No, but to suggest to take away everyone's got because of some incident is.

No it's not. It's called crime prevention.

Many countries do this.

I assume you meant "everybody's gun"


And it's WAY more than one incident


how is a bomb a military?

Because generally on the military have that kind of destructive weapon


Doubt your claim.

I think all the responses of 1776 all over again and civil war, and from my cold dead fingers is just big talk.

A telephone tough guy.
 
None it's not about preventing shootings it's about restricting people like you. That is what it is all about.

Do you not think a criminal (or potential criminal) hasn't got the brains to think that he/she stands a greater risk of being caught and the deterrent value of the law does exactly that?
 
Don't try and pretend it's about criminals

Ultimately it is

Specifically criminals shooting guns in the act of their crimes.



(Though gun control is also about reducing suicides and accidental shootings/negligent discharges).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom