• 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.
I like the background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns, and I like the waiting periods so that no one can purchase a gun in the heat of passion, or especially to kill themselves in the depths of depression. Beyond that, it's illegal guns that need to be the focus of our efforts. Lawful gun owners are actually pretty responsible people, though many illegal guns are stolen from those lawful owners....

many illegal guns start out being purchased legally.
 
Andalublue said:
How? If a convicted felon has served their sentence then denying them the same access to self-defence as other citizens is unconstitutional. If an individual has been certified insane, then they should be institutionalised. If they are not so seriously disturbed as to require care and institutionalisation, then denying them the same self-defence as other citizens is unconstitutional.

If there was any reasonable level of assurance that they would only use a weapon for self-defense, I would support it. Truth is that logic and statistics dictate otherwise.

Then you need a constitutional amendment to state that, don't you?

The Constitution is way outdated for every infinitesimal detail. In the 18th century they were defending themselves from invading tyranny. It was inapplicable. Do I think Benedict Arnold would've been given a musket? Kinda doubt it.

So, does that exception exist?

I'm not sure. I don't work for the DoD or any agency that determines who can have guns and who can't. If they want to exclude someone for a felony - any felony - so be it. I am just saying that there is a disconnect between someone who holds up a liquor store with an uzi and someone who uses a computer and a telephone to commit securities fraud.
 
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?

I'm sure that's true, but why has there not therefore been a constitutional amendment? Either the constitution is the ultimate statement of rights or it isn't, surely.
 
I say a quick background check is all you need, we don't want criminals to have guns after all. But other than that if your background check shows your record is good and your a law abiding citizen you should be able to buy any legal gun of your choosing. I think the waiting period is unnessary as well.
 
Then why are none of these exceptions mentioned in the constitution? Why has no amendment been effected?

Good question, Andy. My answer is because these days the Constitution is only used when it is convenient. The federal government is not about to give Americans more power. Once they take it away, it isn't coming back.
 
I'm sure that's true, but why has there not therefore been a constitutional amendment? Either the constitution is the ultimate statement of rights or it isn't, surely.

because most people understand that some laws are basic common sense, and don't need an Amendment to the Constitution to justify them. The Supreme Court agrees.
 
Good question, Andy. My answer is because these days the Constitution is only used when it is convenient. The federal government is not about to give Americans more power. Once they take it away, it isn't coming back.

because most people understand that some laws are basic common sense, and don't need an Amendment to the Constitution to justify them. The Supreme Court agrees.

Then this seems to significantly undermine the authority of the constitution, doesn't it? This being the case then how can one argue that other constitutional rights cannot be conditioned by the application of subsequent legislation? A Bill of Rights doesn't seem to mean so much in that case.
 
that's fine. the thread asked my opinion and I gave it.

I'm not saying you can't express your opinion, I was merely posting as to why your opinion was wrong. Hehehe
 
Opinions are NEVER wrong.

I wouldn't go that far. I might be of the opinion that pigs have wings and can fly. If I did, I would be wrong. We're allowed to have opinions, but they are not created equal. Some opinions are simply superior to others, based on what backs them up, be it facts or reasoning.
 
I don't think felons who are released, even if time is served, should get free access to guns. The truth is that criminal recidivism is way too high to entrust these people with a tool that can help them commit crimes they are known to commit. Obvious exceptions can be made, such as if you're in prison for insurance fraud or some non-violent crime, but if someone was sent away for assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated anything, rape, etc. your right to ever touch a weapon is forfeit, in my opinion. You are demonstrably untrustworthy for it.



Then that is a malfunction of the justice system. If felons are violent, then they should be kept in custody. If they have paid their debt to society, then the debt should be considered *paid in full*, and they should regain their constitutional rights as free citizens.
 
Then this seems to significantly undermine the authority of the constitution, doesn't it? This being the case then how can one argue that other constitutional rights cannot be conditioned by the application of subsequent legislation? A Bill of Rights doesn't seem to mean so much in that case.

exactly.

It's also an issue to those who have been imprisoned being unable to find gainful employment. Imo, when a criminal has done his time, and if he is considered safe to live back in society, he should not have a felony record haunting him the rest of his life.
 
lizzie said:
Then that is a malfunction of the justice system. If felons are violent, then they should be kept in custody. If they have paid their debt to society, then the debt should be considered *paid in full*, and they should regain their constitutional rights as free citizens.

In that case, all violent and drug-related crimes should involve life imprisonment.

In addition, parole should be eliminated, since it's basically just a "second chance" system that says you have the right to obey more strict guidelines or face advanced punishment.

You may be able to put a static figure on "paid in full", but humanism defies the most elementary concept of that.
 
Opinions are NEVER wrong.

They can be wrong. Say my opinion was that gravity is actually an invisible giant who keeps us all pressed down to the ground. That’s an example of a wrong opinion. Opinions often speak to items of personal interpretation and thus often times are not “wrong” in the sense that there are varying views to a system. But it’s not that they are NEVER wrong, since an opinion can in fact be wrong.
 
In that case, all violent and drug-related crimes should involve life imprisonment.

Then so be it, if the drug-related crimes involved shooting or killing someone.

In addition, parole should be eliminated, since it's basically just a "second chance" system that says you have the right to obey more strict guidelines or face advanced punishment.

Yes. Eliminate parole.

You may be able to put a static figure on "paid in full", but humanism defies the most elementary concept of that.

If the sentence is 30 years, then keep them for 30 years. If the sentence is life without parole, then do it. If it's death, then meet out the death penalty. If someone has paid sufficiently for their crime, to the extent that we release them, then realease them without any type of legal bonds.
 
Then this seems to significantly undermine the authority of the constitution, doesn't it? This being the case then how can one argue that other constitutional rights cannot be conditioned by the application of subsequent legislation? A Bill of Rights doesn't seem to mean so much in that case.

This is exactly how I see it. I feel our rights should be unconditional. When we remove rights from individuals for whatever reason it sets a bad precedence. Imagine if we applied this logic to the 1st amendment? We do not like what you are saying so you now lose your freedom of speech....
 
I'm sure that's true, but why has there not therefore been a constitutional amendment? Either the constitution is the ultimate statement of rights or it isn't, surely.

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.
 
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.

thank you for this.
 
if you have committed a felony and a judge has not reinstituted your right to possess firearms, or if you have been institutionalized by a judge.

the background check is to make sure you don't fall under one of these two categories.

And where are these exceptions found in the phrase “…shall not be infringed…”?
 
many folks in this country believe that if you have a history of criminal activity, your right to own a firearm should be suspended..until you can prove that you are no longer a danger to society.

I agree with this stand.

Yes, a lot of very, very foolish people believe that. But that is not what the Constitution says. As far as the Constitution is written, there is no more valid cause to deny that right to such people, than there is to deny them any of the other rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights. The only legitimate way to deny this right to convicts who have completed their sentences would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly allow that exception to the Second Amendment.
 
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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom