• 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
VySky said:
A right is not a mandate. The beauty of America is we have a choice to exercise our civil rights or not. My point is not requiring an ID for something so important as electing 'lawmakers' is ironic. Especially when they make laws requiring ID for other day to day activities.

-VySky
Click to expand...

We already require permits and registration for rights
 
BrotherFease said:
Guns are regulated on both the federal and state level. Asking people if they know how to properly use a gun is not a tall glass.
Click to expand...
Bull****.
Nobody ever asked me if I knew knew how to properly use a car.
 
VySky said:
A right is not a mandate. The beauty of America is we have a choice to exercise our civil rights or not. My point is not requiring an ID for something so important as electing 'lawmakers' is ironic. Especially when they make laws requiring ID for other day to day activities.

-VySky
Click to expand...

I have no problem of people exercising a constitutional right, but we must put public safety first and foremost. Gun owners must know how to properly use it, before they can legally pull the trigger. Somebody must be a sound mind in order to operate one. I don't think this should be controversial.
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Suicide is a deliberate intentional act of individuals who killed themselves. The quality or lack of safety features played no part in that. Anyone who has stopped themselves from committing suicide has never said holy **** this is an expensive quality built gun with safety features I can't use this to off myself.
 
TomFitz said:
You’re the second gun guy that i have seen declare limits on ammunition or clips, “unconstitutional”

This struck me odd, as there is not one word about either in the Second Amendment.

And if it were unconstitutional, the NRA would have fronted a suit against Trump for his Exectutive Order on bump stocks and trigger cranks.
Click to expand...

They should have-that was a stupid decision by Trump

and calling them clips proves a lot to me
 
BrotherFease said:
Guns are regulated on both the federal and state level. Asking people if they know how to properly use a gun is not a tall glass.
Click to expand...

No of of which changes the fact that what you are proposed in the OP would turn a constitutionally protected right into a state granted privilege. A permit/license,registration and yearly inspection is permission from the government for a privilege. The whole point of a right is that you don't need permission from the government.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
No one of which changes the fact that what you are proposed in the OP would turn a constitutionally protected right into a state granted privilege. A permit/license,registration and yearly inspection is permission from the government for a privilege. The whole point of a right is that you don't need permission from the government.
Click to expand...

That is simply your legal opinion and until you sit on scotus it means nothing
 
BrotherFease said:
There really is no defense on that one. The 2nd amendment is about allowing people to form militias and own weapons. No where does it say there's an infinite amount of ammo one can carry or that we can own any type of weapon. That's just silly nonsense. No court will ever agree to such extremism. Saying it violates the 2nd amendment is rather lazy argumentation and no-nothing mentality.
Click to expand...

so in your mind, at a certain number of rounds, the government magically is authorized to ban a firearm? that is what you are saying, and I bet you cannot tell us why it should be 10 rounds or 5 rounds. You clearly have no understanding of what the second amendment is-a negative restriction on the government and that negative restriction does not suddenly vaporize because I have a larger magazine.

and it is beyond moronic to claim-with over a billion AR 15/M16 magazines in circulation, that such a law is going to influence or impact criminals.
 
BrotherFease said:
By that logic, background checks are unconstitutional. Why do you have to pass a set of barriers in order to execute a constitutional right? Ditto for paying money for purchase a gun or have bullets. Shouldn't that be free?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, the federal background check-which is a duty imposed on dealers, due to their ability to buy and sell firearms across state lines-is a fiction based on a fraudulent interpretation of the commerce clause that conservative courts sadly respected as precedent. But You clearly don't believe that there is a constitutional right to own firearms
 
BrotherFease said:
I have no problem of people exercising a constitutional right, but we must put public safety first and foremost. Gun owners must know how to properly use it, before they can legally pull the trigger. Somebody must be a sound mind in order to operate one. I don't think this should be controversial.
Click to expand...

lets apply the same tests to voting or better yet breeding. You on board with that? Now you seem confused. I have no issue with those who want to carry concealed weapons in public meeting a SHALL ISSUE ccw license requirement as long as the requirements are reasonable, and no more costly than a driver's license. But for owning or possessing a firearm in your own home or transporting it unloaded to a range-NO.
 
TurtleDude said:
so in your mind, at a certain number of rounds, the government magically is authorized to ban a firearm? that is what you are saying, and I bet you cannot tell us why it should be 10 rounds or 5 rounds. You clearly have no understanding of what the second amendment is-a negative restriction on the government and that negative restriction does not suddenly vaporize because I have a larger magazine.

and it is beyond moronic to claim-with over a billion AR 15/M16 magazines in circulation, that such a law is going to influence or impact criminals.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. All what I am pointing out is that gun ownership is not an absolute right and the government has the right to regulate. You seem to be going off into deep ends here. Sorry, but I do not endorse such extremism behavior.
 
jamesrage said:
No of of which changes the fact that what you are proposed in the OP would turn a constitutionally protected right into a state granted privilege. A permit/license,registration and yearly inspection is permission from the government for a privilege. The whole point of a right is that you don't need permission from the government.
Click to expand...

So you're against background checks?

You cannot have it both ways. I trust our courts rather than you. No offense.
 
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...

You are not required to have a license to own a car.

You are not required to have a license to operate a vehicle on private property.
 
None of above, though C has some possibilities.

A) A gun is substantially different from a car, so the argument is a little silly at the start. Once you pass that, driving a car is not a right rather a privilege granted by the state. This is exactly the sort of thing that comes to mind with the word infringed.

B) You cannot make the argument that a person is old enough for most adult responsibilities and not old enough to have rights. If you are old enough to join the military, you are old enough.

C) You can work with this. It won't be enough to satisfy the anti-gun activists.

D) This one is scary. Hell no.

E) Non-lethal weapons is not a bad idea for many forms of security. What's it doing here? Lethal force is still required in some cases.
 
BrotherFease said:
There really is no defense on that one. The 2nd amendment is about allowing people to form militias and own weapons. No where does it say there's an infinite amount of ammo one can carry or that we can own any type of weapon. That's just silly nonsense. No court will ever agree to such extremism. Saying it violates the 2nd amendment is rather lazy argumentation and no-nothing mentality.
Click to expand...

What number of rounds do you believe a militia member should be restricted to?
 
I voted for options A and C. Both are eminently sensible and constitutional.
 
Fledermaus said:
What number of rounds do you believe a militia member should be restricted to?
Click to expand...

I didn't choose the bullet limit option. You seem to be missing the point: the government can regulate the gun industry. Not sure why this is a controversial point.
 
BrotherFease said:
So you're against background checks?

You cannot have it both ways. I trust our courts rather than you. No offense.
Click to expand...
I trust the bill of rights, not what 2nd amendment opponents such as yourself say. The only people who support what you listed in the OP are no supporters of the 2nd amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) Unconstitutional-turns a guaranteed right into a privilege-worthless in preventing violent crime

2) If you want to make the voting age, draft age, age to be treated like an adult in the criminal courts, and to contract-then maybe. However, if you can join the army at 18, answer for adult felonies at 18, sign contracts at 18, then its a hypocritical and stupid

3) confuses guns with magazines and is stupid, unconstitutional and worthless as crime control

4) See my response to the first proposal. Violates the second amendment

5) wouldn't hurt to have bean bag guns-unless an active shooter has a shotgun or rifle-then bean bag guns are worthless
Click to expand...

I am in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. Civilized countries do not guarantee gun ownership. In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to buy a gun?"
 
guns 2.jpg
 
jamesrage said:
Suicide is a deliberate intentional act of individuals who killed themselves. The quality or lack of safety features played no part in that. Anyone who has stopped themselves from committing suicide has never said holy **** this is an expensive quality built gun with safety features I can't use this to off myself.
Click to expand...

And yet, despite your feelings on the matter, junk gun bans have still led to a decrease in the suicide rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom