• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%

  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%

  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
The People. Why do you want folks who have committed robberies & burglaries to own guns?
Click to expand...

If they've paid their debt to society, then it is their right, exactly the same as with every other free American. There is nothing in the Second Amendment, nor elsewhere in the Constitution, that allows for denying them any of their basic Constitutional rights.

If they are so dangerous to society that they cannot be trusted with one of their most basic Constitutional rights, then we need to keep them in prison or put them to death.
 
lizzie said:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It does not state "only the right of those without a past criminal action", or "only the right of those whom we deem worthy". It says the right shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

so you want felons and psychopaths owning firearms??
 
Thunder said:
so you want felons and psychopaths owning firearms??
Click to expand...

If felon has served his time, and paid his debt to society, yes. As for psychopaths, is there a way to prove he is a psychopath prior to his acquiring a gun? If so, is he a ward of the state who is institutionalized, or is he a free member of society who functions and works?
 
Andalublue said:
Then why are none of these exceptions mentioned in the constitution? Why has no amendment been effected?
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
The People put in new laws. The People have spoken, and they don't want convicted felons, children, non-citizens, folks under indictment, or folks who have been institutionalized in the past, owning firarms.

why would you?
Click to expand...

Lower laws do not trump the Constitution. If the people really do not want “convicted felons, children, non-citizens, folks under indictment, or folks who have been institutionalized in the past, owning firarms [sic]”, then the Constitution itself needs to be amended to make these exceptions to the Second Amendment. Until such an Amendment is ratified, there is no legitimate basis for these exceptions.
 
Paschendale said:
Because the right that's guaranteed is the right to "keep and bear arms". Not to do so conveniently, and not without any exceptions at all. There are many laws enacted by congress limiting the freedom of speech, some of which were enacted by the founders. Everything is subject to some kind of reasoned examination, and no right is 100% ironclad. Even the people who wrote the bill of rights did not adhere to the idea that no exceptions were permitted.
Click to expand...

That we have foolishly allowed government to violate other rights is not a good argument in favor of allowing them greater power to violate this one.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Wisconsin just passed its open carry law and we've already seen one instance where vigilante justice was carried out in a grocery store. In a nutshell, two robbers entered the store, one was armed and the other was not. A man carrying a gun shot the armed robber and stopped it from happening.

Now don't get me wrong, hooray for the trigger happy customer. However, lets say he missed and shot the innocent bystander behind the robber. I know its a serious stretch here, but he WAS in a grocery opening fire. I just don't get the whole argument that "the more guns the better" (hocks a loogey ina spitoon)
Click to expand...

REALLY? You call that "vigilantism?" He shot the ARMED suspect. He didn't muder him. Then you propose the what ifs? What if the armed robber had opened fire and killed everyone in the store? What if a meteor struck outside?

What DID happen is that the guy didn't miss. He shot well and stopped the armed attack. Are you aware that Civillians have a lower rate of error than police when it comes to shootings. 2% to the 11% on police. Civillians also shoot more criminals.
 
lizzie said:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It does not state "only the right of those without a past criminal action", or "only the right of those whom we deem worthy". It says the right shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Felonds are not citizens. The Constitution only applies to Full Citizens.
 
lizzie said:
If felon has served his time, and paid his debt to society, yes. As for psychopaths, is there a way to prove he is a psychopath prior to his acquiring a gun? If so, is he a ward of the state who is institutionalized, or is he a free member of society who functions and works?
Click to expand...

With Pyschopaths generally show warning signs and are not allowed to carry weapons if they are shown to be a danger to society.
 
stonewall50 said:
With Pyschopaths generally show warning signs and are not allowed to carry weapons if they are shown to be a danger to society.
Click to expand...

Who has shown them to be a psychopath prior to some type of felonious action on their part? Just because someone acts suspicious or mentally unstable, it doesn't imply that they can or should be declared a psychopath.
 
stonewall50 said:
Felonds are not citizens. The Constitution only applies to Full Citizens.
Click to expand...

A felon who is incarcerated is not a *free citizen*. They retain their citizenship, but they are not in the civilian population.
 
lizzie said:
A felon who is incarcerated is not a *free citizen*. They retain their citizenship, but they are not in the civilian population.
Click to expand...

folks who are freed from prison after serving their sentence, are still considered felons.
 
Thunder said:
folks who are freed from prison after serving their sentence, are still considered felons.
Click to expand...

I realize that. I don't support the idea that people who have paid their debt to society should still be marginalized as citizens once they are free again.
 
lizzie said:
I realize that. I don't support the idea that people who have paid their debt to society should still be marginalized as citizens once they are free again.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why felons have the right to petition a court to get their gun-rights back.

However, I don't know if they can petition to get back their voting rights. And that's disgusting.
 
Andalublue said:
But where does the constitution say that convicted felons (who have obviously served out their sentence, if they're free) have no second amendment rights? Or indeed the 'institutionalized'? Why are these classes of people denied the right to self-defence? Who decided to place limits on constitutional rights?

Strangely, I find myself in agreement with Jerry and James on this. If you are a free resident, is it not your constitutional right to bear arms? Background checks seem utterly pointless.

I don't believe the right to bear arms is a universal human right, but it is clearly a US constitutional right and should not be subject to state or federal laws without a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Yes. The way I read it its only the Militia that has the right to take your guns. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Thunder said:
?????????????
Click to expand...

You can look it up if you like. A felon does not have full citizenship and certain rights are no longer relevant (voting, firearms, etc). I am sure you knew this. They are 2nd Class I guess. I believe that is the way it should be this way anyway, but that is another discussion.
 
Thunder said:
I agree. That's why felons have the right to petition a court to get their gun-rights back.

However, I don't know if they can petition to get back their voting rights. And that's disgusting.
Click to expand...

Imo, they shouldn't have to petition the court to get their rights back.
 
samsmart said:
The poll doesn't really represent my ideas when it comes to gun control.

I think that firearms that are used primarily for hunting and that are difficult to conceal - rifles, shotguns, and other long arms should have rather low restrictions. Handguns, on the other hand, should be regulated locally.
Click to expand...



The problem is the places most prone to restrict the possession and/or carry of handguns are places like NYC, Chicago, DC.... places where an honest citizen most NEEDS to carry a gun.
 
Thunder said:
The People. Why do you want folks who have committed robberies & burglaries to own guns?
Click to expand...


IF they served their time in prison then yes their constitutional rights should be reinstated.If you wish for these people's rights to be infringed on then you need to push for a constitutional amendment.
 
lizzie said:
Who has shown them to be a psychopath prior to some type of felonious action on their part? Just because someone acts suspicious or mentally unstable, it doesn't imply that they can or should be declared a psychopath.
Click to expand...

"A Secret Service study* into school shootings concluded that school shooters do not simply snap and that a person’s downward spiral toward violence is typically accompanied by numerous warning signs."'

*“Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education with support from the National Institute of Justice, Co-Directors Bryan Vossekuil, Marissa Reddy PhD, Robert Fein PhD, October 2000

I have done a little more research and have found that psychiatric professionals are pretty well agreed that people don't just snap. They show signs. And if you are showing symptoms you CAN be Baker Acted. In a few cases of mass shooters, there was clearly a failing in the system that didn't not act upon clear warning signs. If a person shows the righty symptoms they absolutely should be declared dangerous to themselves or others. Pyschopathy is a specific diagnosis btw, and there other classifications that would show someone to be a danger to themselves or others.
 
stonewall50 said:
"A Secret Service study* into school shootings concluded that school shooters do not simply snap and that a person’s downward spiral toward violence is typically accompanied by numerous warning signs."'

*“Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education with support from the National Institute of Justice, Co-Directors Bryan Vossekuil, Marissa Reddy PhD, Robert Fein PhD, October 2000

I have done a little more research and have found that psychiatric professionals are pretty well agreed that people don't just snap. They show signs. And if you are showing symptoms you CAN be Baker Acted. In a few cases of mass shooters, there was clearly a failing in the system that didn't not act upon clear warning signs. If a person shows the righty symptoms they absolutely should be declared dangerous to themselves or others. Pyschopathy is a specific diagnosis btw, and there other classifications that would show someone to be a danger to themselves or others.
Click to expand...

Children in school aren't yet of legal age to own firearms.
As for showing signs, if someone notices these signs, and doesn't report them, why would that person be restricted from buying a gun legally? If they did report those signs, then the psychiatric and legal system would have to intervene in such circumstances. Until the individual has committed a felony, or otherwise been barred legally from his constitutional rights, these are just hypotheticals.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the Typo:

Article 1 Section 8:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
Click to expand...

Of course the more important (prior was just something interesting I saw):

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom