• 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!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?


  • Total voters
    104
How do you prove that gun does not cross state lines once you sell it?

uh that is already illegal. I can only sell to people in my own state. that destroys any interstate commerce which deprives the federal government of any power to regulate.
 
So if 90% of the people wanted Christianity and only Christianity to be taught in all public schools then we can just ignore the Constitution? God you spout a ton of idiocy.


For those that know the law, that is where the Supreme court decides whether a law is constitutional or not. They are in fact the only body specified under the Constitution with judicial power.
 
For those that know the law, that is where the Supreme court decides whether a law is constitutional or not. They are in fact the only body specified under the Constitution to with judicial power.

and it is legitimate for those who oppose a law to note that its unconstitutional

tell us where the federal government gets the power to regulate purely intrastate activity after the LOPEZ ruling

and given you are a gun banner and you support this proposed law doesn't that prove that you think its a tool to get you closer to the bans you want?
 
uh that is already illegal. I can only sell to people in my own state. that destroys any interstate commerce which deprives the federal government of any power to regulate.

Despite whether it is already illegal or not, if it can be shown that guns being purchased at gun shows in one state are being used in crimes in another state, there is a good argument that the gun show sales are complicit in the interstate commerce of guns.
 
Despite whether it is already illegal or not, if it can be shown that guns being purchased at gun shows in one state are being used in crimes in another state, there is a good argument that the gun show sales are complicit in the interstate commerce of guns.


that's a non answer and demonstrates a rather shocking ignorance of constitutional law.

its already against the law

and how can gun show sales are complicit? that's just stupid
 
Show me the 85% of Californians that don't support gay marriage?

Both times that the issue came up on the ballot here, Californians voted overwhelmingly against recognizing the proposed sick, vulgar mockery of marriage as anything comparable to genuine marriage. It is only through the actions of corrupt judges that the issue is still in question.
 
that's a non answer and demonstrates a rather shocking ignorance of constitutional law.

its already against the law

and how can gun show sales are complicit? that's just stupid


Its not against the law in 40 states for guns to be sold privately that may be carried across state lines.
 
Both times that the issue came up on the ballot here, Californians voted overwhelmingly against recognizing the proposed sick, vulgar mockery of marriage as anything comparable to genuine marriage. It is only through the actions of corrupt judges that the issue is still in question.


Barely over 50%, nothing like the 90% support of background checks.
 
No matter how often you repeat this lie, it will remain every bit as much a lie as it was the first time you said it.

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Lie - definition of Lie by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


For someone to lie, they must have intended to deceive.

And since you cannot know what his intentions were, then you cannot know whether he lied or not.

So your statement is totally meaningless.
 
No matter how often you repeat this lie, it will remain every bit as much a lie as it was the first time you said it.

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Lie - definition of Lie by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


For someone to lie, they must have intended to deceive.

And since you cannot know what his intentions were, then you cannot know whether he lied or not.

So your statement is totally meaningless.


I disagree.

It is plausible that when he first made that 90% claim, he thought it was true.

I think that claim has been solidly enough disproven, that I find it highly implausible that he still believes it to be true.

I cannot say for certain what goes on in his head, but it is clearly much more plausible that he is willfully repeating something that he now knows to be untrue than that he still believes it to be true.
 
I disagree.

It is plausible that when he first made that 90% claim, he thought it was true.

I think that claim has been solidly enough disproven, that I find it highly implausible that he still believes it to be true.

I cannot say for certain what goes on in his head, but it is clearly much more plausible that he is willfully repeating something that he now knows to be untrue than that he still believes it to be true.

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Plausibility is irrelevant.

As the definition clearly shows - the only way to know if he was lying is to know his intent.

You can guess all you like - there is no possible way to know unless he states it.

And since he did not (I assume) - there is no possible way you can know whether he lied or not.

You can believe he lied all you wish.

However, to state that he did in a matter-of-fact manner is (imo) defamatory and possibly slanderous.

Personally, I think you owe him an apology.



Have a nice day.
 
How do you prove that gun does not cross state lines once you sell it?

Perhaps you don't know what the term "interstate commerce" means? Interstate commerce is taking something from one state into another state with the express purpose of selling it in that different state. Interstate commerce does not mean selling it in one state to another person in that state...that is called "intrastate commerce". Something that the federal government has no power over. Once the gun is sold intrastate it does not matter if the person that bought that item for personal use moves across state lines.
 
For those that know the law, that is where the Supreme court decides whether a law is constitutional or not. They are in fact the only body specified under the Constitution with judicial power.

But they are not the only ones that can decide if a law is Constitutional or not. The courts may be the only ones with judicial power, but they are not the only ones that are allowed to determine if a law is Constitutional or not. You may wish that it was so...but it is not.
 
Well, may as well do nothing than, right? Just keep selling guns to criminals and the mentally deranged in 40 states...............

That is not quite what I am saying. I was simply pointing out two legal problems I think exist when talking about this issue.
 
Perhaps you don't know what the term "interstate commerce" means? Interstate commerce is taking something from one state into another state with the express purpose of selling it in that different state. Interstate commerce does not mean selling it in one state to another person in that state...that is called "intrastate commerce". Something that the federal government has no power over. Once the gun is sold intrastate it does not matter if the person that bought that item for personal use moves across state lines.

How does the universal background check prevent law abiding citizens that pass the background check from taking their gun purchase across state lines?
 
How does the universal background check prevent law abiding citizens that pass the background check from taking their gun purchase across state lines?

1: I never said that it did.

2: That is not what was being talked about. This is just you moving the goal posts.

Since when have I cared about slanted polls and low wattage respondents. Your only argument is one based on an appeal to mediocrity

tell us Catawba-given your expansive understanding of constitutional law-how is this proposed law going to get past LOPEZ and what exactly is the connection to INTERSTATE COMMERCE given that I can only sell a personal weapon to someone who lives in my own state?

How do you prove that gun does not cross state lines once you sell it?

You were trying to connect the moving of the gun across state lines after it was sold to interstate commerce in order to justify the federal governments intrusion of making private sellers do background checks.
 
I never said that it did.


Then do you know anyone that can explain how background checks are an infringement of interstate commerce laws?
 
"Gun control will be the first order of business in the Senate when lawmakers return in April from their two-week holiday break.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) formally moved a package of gun-related bills onto the legislative calendar Thursday night, setting up the most serious debate on gun control in Congress in more than a decade.


While it will not include a ban on assault weapons — Reid said Tuesday that proposal has less than 40 Senate votes behind it — the package will include provisions for a universal background check system, stricter federal criminal laws for gun trafficking and provisions to improve school safety.


Coming in the wake of the December massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, the most aggressive provision remains the background check proposal. A bipartisan collection of senators, led by Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), have been trying to reach an agreement on the checks but have hit a stumbling block on how to maintain records for private gun sales.
Reid remained hopeful that the senators could reach such a deal.


“I hope negotiations will continue over the upcoming break to reach a bipartisan compromise on background checks, and I am hopeful that they will succeed,” Reid said. “If a compromise is reached, I am open to including it in the base bill.


“But I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks.”

He also said that the bill will be amended on the floor and will likely take several weeks of debate before it comes to a vote.



pixel.gif

“The bill I advance tonight will serve as the basis for opening debate. Once debate begins, I will ensure that a ban on assault weapons, limits to high-capacity magazines and mental health provisions receive votes, along with other amendments,” Reid said."

Senate to take up gun control after break - Washington Post
 
Glad I am all set on everything they want to ban
 
Then do you know anyone that can explain how background checks are an infringement of interstate commerce laws?

Diversion much? Moving the goal posts much? You were asked a specific question and then when you tried to link interstate commerce with intrastate commerce you were called out on it. You can try and continue this line of "reasoning" but it will continue to fail because you either do not understand the difference between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce or since it has been explained to you the more likely scenario...are willfully ignoring it in order to push your anti-gun agenda. In which case your arguements are nothing more than partisan hackery at best.

How does the government have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce? IE private sellers in a state selling to people in that state. Which is what they are trying to do by insisting that private sellers must do background checks.
 
Diversion much? Moving the goal posts much? You were asked a specific question and then when you tried to link interstate commerce with intrastate commerce you were called out on it. You can try and continue this line of "reasoning" but it will continue to fail because you either do not understand the difference between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce or since it has been explained to you the more likely scenario...are willfully ignoring it in order to push your anti-gun agenda. In which case your arguements are nothing more than partisan hackery at best.

The premise of the argument was that background checks are incompatible with interstate commerce laws. I want to know how?
 
The premise of the argument was that background checks are incompatible with interstate commerce laws. I want to know how?

If the buyer and the seller are in the same state (typical private gun sale) then there is no interstate commerce.
 
Back
Top Bottom