• 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!

Which of these gun control measures could you support?

Do you support any of these gun control measures?

  • Proposal A

    Votes: 19 82.6%

  • Proposal B

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Proposal C

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Proposal D

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Proposal E

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Total voters
    23
BrotherFease said:
I am not saying I support any of these, but I want to know what you guys think of these proposals.

Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.

Proposal B - Treat gun ownership like the drinking age or the ability to rent a car. Make the age to own a gun 21 years old or 25 years old. If an 18 year old, wants to go shooting, he or she needs to bring a parent or guardian or somebody of legal age.

Proposal C - Put a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire. Gun manufacturers cannot sell guns in the U.S, if they surpass the legal amount.

Proposal D - Require all gun owners to take a psychological test every year. If you fail, you lose your guns.

Proposal E - Require all school security guards to carry around bean bag guns.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, I could support a melding of A and B.

I think D is not a good idea at all. Well, maybe not a good idea at all. I see huge difficulty with the whole notion of some nationwide shrink test to see if folks are sane and rational enough to own a gun. OK But who is going to design the test? Who is going to administer the test? What sort of criteria would disqualify a person?

With E, yeah, I could foresee Resource Officers abusing the carrying of bean bag guns. Besides what is the point of bean bag guns up against AR's or AK's or shotguns or pistols?

I can't get behind C at all.

Hey I know, why not match guns back to what was state of the art weaponry at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, December 16, 1791.

Smooth bore flintlock muskets and smooth bore flintlock pistols.

That would certainly reduce the number of folks killed in any mass shooting incident.

It wouldn't stop shootings.

It might make folks like the El Paso shooter resort to more effective means of killing large numbers at one time. Like IED's. Car bombs, truck bombs, or just using cars or trucks to smash through crowds of people.

Interesting discussion though, thought provoking.

:2wave:
 
BrotherFease said:
Which part of the 2nd amendment? The courts have been clear that we can regulate the gun industry.

Fun fact: the word "gun" appears no where in the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

arms include firearms. arms-according to the founders-meant weapons that individuals would normally keep and bear. that is why some courts have used the second amendment, or state equivalents, to strike down laws that prohibit the ownership of switchblade knives (Oregon) or Nunchaku (NY). The courts have bought into a dishonest precedent that was actually never enunciated in a court decision in a timely fashion that was based on a dishonest expansion of the commerce clause. But the fact is, the USSC has started walking back the idiocy of Wickard V Filburn when it was expanded to regulate actions that are not directly commercial (such as the School zone gun bans in Lopez)

so licensing a right is clearly a violation. So is requiring a psych test.
 
BrotherFease said:
Which part of the 2nd amendment? The courts have been clear that we can regulate the gun industry.

Fun fact: the word "gun" appears no where in the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
And what EXACTLY did SCOTUS say? Something about commonly carried, for usual purposes?
 
Bullseye said:
And what EXACTLY did SCOTUS say? Something about commonly carried, for usual purposes?
Click to expand...

The Heller test

arms in Common use and not UNUSUALLY dangerous are protected

Scalia further explained that semi auto magazine fed rifles, clearly are protected

If you go by Miller-any arms that can be established as militia useful are protected. In Miller-(since Miller had died and no one presented an argument in his behalf) , the court bought the factually unsupported assertion by the government that sawed off shotguns were not something the militia would use-but rather were the arm of a bank robber. The miller court merely assumed that the commerce clause allowed this regulation without ever explaining why. I am unaware of any supreme court case that did such a thing during the FDR administration.
 
BrotherFease said:
Which part of the 2nd amendment? The courts have been clear that we can regulate the gun industry.

Fun fact: the word "gun" appears no where in the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

You're correct; no right is unlimited. So guns can be regulated. But that "regulation" is held to a very high standard when applied to basic rights. And the right itself must be protected. Washington DC gun laws were so strict and cumbersome that it essentially prohibited honest citizens from owning handguns. Washington DC lost that case before the SC. The case was Heller. And in the Constitution "arms" has been pretty much equated with guns at all levels of the court system for our entire history. Just like " the people" means every individual. So only a truly radicalized SC would ever interpret the Constitution the way you have. I hope I'm dead and gone before that day comes. Because gun rights won't be the only rights that will disappear if such a court ever comes to power.
 
TurtleDude said:
The Heller test

arms in Common use and not UNUSUALLY dangerous are protected

Scalia further explained that semi auto magazine fed rifles, clearly are protected

If you go by Miller-any arms that can be established as militia useful are protected. In Miller-(since Miller had died and no one presented an argument in his behalf) , the court bought the factually unsupported assertion by the government that sawed off shotguns were not something the militia would use-but rather were the arm of a bank robber. The miller court merely assumed that the commerce clause allowed this regulation without ever explaining why. I am unaware of any supreme court case that did such a thing during the FDR administration.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Miller a scumbucket to begin with and the reason his case was picked was because it was HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would defend him or, at least, defend him vigorously.
 
BrotherFease said:
Cute, but still cannot intelligently respond. Doing nothing, means you're perfectly fine with what is happening.
Click to expand...

We need to repeal the NFA and the Brady Bill, pass national constitutional carry. That'll go a long way to preventing what's happening.
 
BrotherFease said:
Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.
Click to expand...
You do not need a license to buy or own a car, and drivers licenses are renewed every 5 years, not every year.
 
Lutherf said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Miller a scumbucket to begin with and the reason his case was picked was because it was HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would defend him or, at least, defend him vigorously.
Click to expand...

yep: read this-excellent even handed analysis

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf



Ragon did not really think the NFA violated the Second Amendment, and probably colluded with the government to create the ideal test case. His opinion is peculiar on its face, begging for an appeal. A memorandum disposition is appropriate when deciding a routine case, but not when holding a law facially unconstitutional.
 
BrotherFease said:
Cute, but still cannot intelligently respond. Doing nothing, means you're perfectly fine with what is happening.
Click to expand...

No reply required; you are not the first to offer that particularly fallacious argument; that statement went the way of the dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:
BrotherFease said:
I am not saying I support any of these, but I want to know what you guys think of these proposals.

Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.

Proposal B - Treat gun ownership like the drinking age or the ability to rent a car. Make the age to own a gun 21 years old or 25 years old. If an 18 year old, wants to go shooting, he or she needs to bring a parent or guardian or somebody of legal age.

Proposal C - Put a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire. Gun manufacturers cannot sell guns in the U.S, if they surpass the legal amount.

Proposal D - Require all gun owners to take a psychological test every year. If you fail, you lose your guns.

Proposal E - Require all school security guards to carry around bean bag guns.
Click to expand...
m

C and the first part of A.
 
BrotherFease said:
Proposal A - Treat guns like cars.
Click to expand...
So no background check to buy a gun, because you don't do a background check to buy a car. And you can start carrying a gun at 14 in most states, just like you can start driving at 14 in most states.
 
BrotherFease said:
Proposal A - Treat guns like cars.
Click to expand...
So I can buy a gun online and have it delivered right to my house because I can do that with a car. And remember, no license or background check required, just like with cars.

You really want 14-year-olds carrying guns to school, just as they do with cars?
 
Last edited:
BrotherFease said:
I am not saying I support any of these, but I want to know what you guys think of these proposals.

Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.

Proposal B - Treat gun ownership like the drinking age or the ability to rent a car. Make the age to own a gun 21 years old or 25 years old. If an 18 year old, wants to go shooting, he or she needs to bring a parent or guardian or somebody of legal age.

Proposal C - Put a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire. Gun manufacturers cannot sell guns in the U.S, if they surpass the legal amount.

Proposal D - Require all gun owners to take a psychological test every year. If you fail, you lose your guns.

Proposal E - Require all school security guards to carry around bean bag guns.
Click to expand...

Hard pass. We have more than enough gun laws as it is.
 
How about proposal F...the one where people that pretend to give a **** about gun violence start targeting the perpetrators of the vast majority of violent crimes in America.

Then come back and lets talk about how that went.
 
I don't support any of those measures. I support measures which have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners, and which are actually proven to be effective. The three biggest measures I would support are universal background checks, "junk gun" bans, and bans on owning firearms for people who've committed certain violent misdemeanors.

"May issue" rather than "Shall issue" concealed carry laws have also proven effective, but that's a bit more problematic because it's more likely to affect law-abiding owners. Maybe if the appeal process were robust enough I could get behind it.
 
molten_dragon said:
I don't support any of those measures. I support measures which have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners, and which are actually proven to be effective. The three biggest measures I would support are universal background checks, "junk gun" bans, and bans on owning firearms for people who've committed certain violent misdemeanors.

"May issue" rather than "Shall issue" concealed carry laws have also proven effective, but that's a bit more problematic because it's more likely to affect law-abiding owners. Maybe if the appeal process were robust enough I could get behind it.
Click to expand...

What's a 'junk gun', I haven't heard that term before.
 
BrotherFease said:
I am not saying I support any of these, but I want to know what you guys think of these proposals.

Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.

Proposal B - Treat gun ownership like the drinking age or the ability to rent a car. Make the age to own a gun 21 years old or 25 years old. If an 18 year old, wants to go shooting, he or she needs to bring a parent or guardian or somebody of legal age.

Proposal C - Put a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire. Gun manufacturers cannot sell guns in the U.S, if they surpass the legal amount.

Proposal D - Require all gun owners to take a psychological test every year. If you fail, you lose your guns.

Proposal E - Require all school security guards to carry around bean bag guns.
Click to expand...

I like a mix of A and B; C could be subject to licensing, no need to go to extremes. D is overkill, I suspect E is for laughs.
 
uptower said:
I like a mix of A and B; C could be subject to licensing, no need to go to extremes. D is overkill, I suspect E is for laughs.
Click to expand...

You like A, but you don't need a license to buy a car...and you like C, but there's no way to limit how many rounds a gun can fire. Care to explain yourself?
 
Wayne Jr said:
What's a 'junk gun', I haven't heard that term before.
Click to expand...

Cheap, poorly made guns. The bans target guns that don't meet certain basic safety features, and those bans have been tied to a decrease in the suicide rate.
 
While I agree with some level of regulation, we should never get to the point like California, where its so restrictive, its infringing on our second amendment rights.
 
Wayne Jr said:
You like A, but you don't need a license to buy a car...and you like C, but there's no way to limit how many rounds a gun can fire. Care to explain yourself?
Click to expand...

Yes.

To use a car you need a license. I feel that is reasonable to use a firearm. Since firearms are small, portable and designed to kill, I would go as far as to suggest a license to own. If someone with a car but without a license gets caught driving without a licence they get a ticket. A little trickier when you catch someone in the middle of a school shooting.

Since some countries follow levels of licensing - hunting rifle or shotgun, semi auto, pistol, etc..., the amount of ammo can be determined by the gun which is determined by the permit held. Higher the value, the more a user can be trusted.

And please remember we are sharing our opinions on the use of hunks of aluminum and plastic here. 'Explain yourself' sounds a little bit emotional. I prefer to 'share your thoughts'.
 
uptower said:
Yes.

To use a car you need a license. I feel that is reasonable to use a firearm. Since firearms are small, portable and designed to kill, I would go as far as to suggest a license to own. If someone with a car but without a license gets caught driving without a licence they get a ticket. A little trickier when you catch someone in the middle of a school shooting.
Click to expand...
My employer has a fleet of semi-trucks that aren't even registered. They're CMVs but no CDL is required because they never leave the property. The trucks are yard dogs and this is a very large piece of land. Printed on every drivers-side door is "this vehicle is not authorised to operate on public roads and is not to leave company property". If we treat guns like cars, then there wouldn't be a license requirement to buy a gun, just to carry one in public.

uptower said:
Since some countries follow levels of licensing - hunting rifle or shotgun, semi-auto, pistol, etc..., the amount of ammo can be determined by the gun which is determined by the permit holder. Higher the value, the more a user can be trusted.
Click to expand...
No country limits how many rounds a gun can fire. Not a single one, on the whole planet. Even a breach-loaded shotgun only used at a gun club in the UK has no limit on how many rounds can be fired through it before the gun has to be discarded. That would be a whole new category of regulation.
 
Last edited:
OP hasn't commented in his own thread. He realizes how stupid his 'proposals' were.
 
uptower said:
Yes.

To use a car you need a license. I feel that is reasonable to use a firearm. Since firearms are small, portable and designed to kill, I would go as far as to suggest a license to own. If someone with a car but without a license gets caught driving without a licence they get a ticket. A little trickier when you catch someone in the middle of a school shooting.

Since some countries follow levels of licensing - hunting rifle or shotgun, semi auto, pistol, etc..., the amount of ammo can be determined by the gun which is determined by the permit held. Higher the value, the more a user can be trusted.

And please remember we are sharing our opinions on the use of hunks of aluminum and plastic here. 'Explain yourself' sounds a little bit emotional. I prefer to 'share your thoughts'.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir for the reasonable retort. I am not asking people to precisely agree with the exact wording, but the concepts being presented.

Licensing to me is probably the best route. If you want to drive your car on the road, your vehicle needs to get registered, you need to have a license, and every year your car needs inspection. Needing a license means you need to demonstrate, you can properly load, store, and fire a weapon. It means you understand where you can shoot your weapon and wear you cannot. I don't think it's unreasonable. And you can even have different levels of licensing. For high-capacity magazine, you probably need to get a psychological test and provide a reason for owning such a massive weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom