• 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!

What is "common sense" gun control?

What is "common sense" gun control?

  • Total voters
    28
Bonnie1988 said:
The restrictions on free speech - even as prior restraints - are generally too protect others, not to restrain the words. Certain types of words are deemed inherently poising to great a danger to others to allow.
Click to expand...
Yes... but to protect others from actual harm (as in slanderl/libel) or potential harm from clear, immediate and present danger (such as inciting a riot). Simple posession of a gun causes neither actual harm, nor does it create a clear, immediate and present danger.

Restrictions on weapons also are to protect others, not to restrain guns. Certain types of weapons inherently poise to great a danger to others.
Click to expand...
Simple posession of any firearm inherently poses a threat to no one. Background checks, licenseing and registration are restrictions on simple posession, and as such, protect no one, and therefore do indeed restrain guns.

There is an inherent balancing necessary to rights as one right comes to infringe on the rights of others.
Click to expand...
Your right to swing your fist ends as it hits my nose.
The swing of the fist, not the posession of said fist, is the determiner here.
This is why it is illegal to fire a gun into the air inside city limits, and why such a ban does not violate the 2nd. This is the 2A equivelant to yelling fire in a theater.

I have a right - in my opinion - to not be exposed to the danger of someone with nuclear weapons living next door as an extreme example.
Click to expand...
And one irrelevant to the conversation.

I have a right to send my children to school without fear of the escalated danger of some demented person entering the school with a fully automatic Uzi in each hand.
Click to expand...
Even if this were true (and given that your right to be 'free from fear' does not exist...)
My simple poseesion of such a weapon does not violate your right to this.

I have a right to attend a Sarah Palin rally without fear of someone opening up with a fully automatic 50 caliber on us from a mile away.
Click to expand...
Even if this were true....
My simple poseesion of such a weapon does not violate your right to do this.

But I also have a right to carry my .357 derringer in my purse. I don't see it as an infringement that I first had to obtain a license
Click to expand...
You may not see it that way -- but, under the argument put forth here, it most certainly is, as simple posession creates a danger to the rights of no one.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
And one irrelevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Actually, your sluffing that off loses your entire claim. To use your quote:

Simple possession of a nuclear weapon does not create a clear, immediate and present danger.

You obviously believe a person should be able to carry a weapon anywhere - such as in the public White House or school houses. Someone walking through a public school carrying a machine gun by itself doesn't poise any danger at all - your reasoning anyway.
 
Last edited:
Bonnie1988 said:
Actually, your sluffing that off loses your entire claim.
Click to expand...
The discussion is gun control. not nuclear weapons.
Therefore, any discussion of nuclear weapons is irrelevant.
IF there is a counter to my argument, then it can be exercised without referral to irrelevant issues.

How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun cause you harm?
How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun create a clear, immediate and present danger to you?

If you cannot answer these questions, then you cannot use these arguments to support the idea that restrictions on simple posession do not create an infringement on the 2nd, usig the same reaosning that they do not create an abridgement of the 1st.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
The discussion is gun control. not nuclear weapons.
Therefore, any discussion of nuclear weapons is irrelevant.
IF there is a counter to my argument, then it can be exercised without referral to irrelevant issues.
Click to expand...

Then you draw your line. What weapons do you accept can be prohibited or regulated? What about a fully automatic 20 mm cannon? Flame thrower? Grenade launcher with grenade? Fully auto 50 caliber?

Then justify the restriction on your doctrine.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
Then you draw your line.
Click to expand...
This has already been done.

Then justify the restriction on your doctrine.
Click to expand...
As YOU support the restrictions, It is YOUR job to justify them.

And, in case you didnt see my edit:

How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun cause you harm?
How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun create a clear, immediate and present danger to you?

If you cannot answer these questions, then you cannot use these arguments to support the idea that restrictions on simple posession do not create an infringement on the 2nd, usig the same reaosning that they do not create an abridgement of the 1st.
 
I've already told my view.
I believe as a matter of public/social policy, a person should be required to show competency on a weapon in terms of usage and law before ownership.

In terms of weapons restrictions, I favor highly regulating/restricting mass kill or extreme penetration weapons. Our society cannot function with anyone able to possess a weapon for which there is no hiding or defense whatsoever nor with anyone able to own a mass-kill weapon.

Criminal laws don't protect one single person from a crime. They only after-the-fact punish which does nothing for the victims.

At the time of the Constitution, walls stopped bullets. Now they don't.

Since you exclude nuclear weapons as right, your "ownership causes no danger" just falls as a doctrine. A mini-gun at a football game equates to the killing power of a bomb. Or do you also support the right of people to carry explosives because they also don't poise immediate danger and it is only people who kill, not bombs?
 
Goobieman said:
This has already been done.


As YOU support the restrictions, It is YOUR job to justify them.

And, in case you didnt see my edit:

How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun cause you harm?
How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun create a clear, immediate and present danger to you?

If you cannot answer these questions, then you cannot use these arguments to support the idea that restrictions on simple posession do not create an infringement on the 2nd, usig the same reaosning that they do not create an abridgement of the 1st.
Click to expand...

Are you afraid to state any weapons you wouldn't allow ownership of without any licensing or restrictions?
What about Mini-guns that fire 6,000 bullets a minute. Ok with that?
 
Bonnie1988 said:
Are you afraid to state any weapons you wouldn't allow ownership of without any licensing or restrictions?
What about Mini-guns that fire 6,000 bullets a minute. Ok with that?
Click to expand...

Yup, seems ok to me. Who the hell's gonna carry around that much ammo. Plus a good rifle will take care of that jerk anyway.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
I've already told my view.
I believe as a matter of public/social policy, a person should be required to show competency on a weapon in terms of usage and law before ownership.
Click to expand...
Thats fine,,, but you havent explained how this doesnt create a prior-restraint style restriction on the right to arms.

In terms of weapons restrictions, I favor highly regulating/restricting mass kill or extreme penetration weapons.
Click to expand...
How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun cause you harm?
How does my simple posession of a 50BMG machinegun create a clear, immediate and present danger to you?

Our society cannot function with anyone able to possess a weapon for which there is no hiding or defense whatsoever nor with anyone able to own a mass-kill weapon.
Click to expand...
Unsupportable.

Criminal laws don't protect one single person from a crime. They only after-the-fact punish which does nothing for the victims.
Click to expand...
Irelevant to the discussion.

At the time of the Constitution, walls stopped bullets. Now they don't.
Click to expand...
Stone walls, sure.
Otherwise -- incorrect.
And in either case - irrelevant to the discussion.

Since you exclude nuclear weapons as right, your "ownership causes no danger" just falls as a doctrine.
Click to expand...
Not that you have shown.

A mini-gun at a football game equates to the killing power of a bomb.
Click to expand...
How does my simple posession of a minigun cause you harm?
How does my simple posession of a minigun create a clear, immediate and present danger to you?

If you cannot answer these questions, then you cannot use these arguments as applied to the first amendment to support the idea that restrictions on simple posession do not create an infringement on the 2nd.

Remember -- we're talking about licending and registration and background checks, all of which are restrictions on simple posession.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
Are you afraid to state any weapons you wouldn't allow ownership of without any licensing or restrictions?
What about Mini-guns that fire 6,000 bullets a minute. Ok with that?
Click to expand...

IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong - the 2nd isn't my forte) the courts have said that the second applies to any weapon 'in common use at the time for lawful purposes' or something to that effect
 
Kernel Sanders said:
IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong - the 2nd isn't my forte) the courts have said that the second applies to any weapon 'in common use at the time for lawful purposes' or something to that effect
Click to expand...
The decisions in Miller and Heller effectively include any firearm you'd care to mention under the term "arms" as used in the 2nd.
 
OK, you're alright with an 86 year old man with dementia buying a Mini gun and 10,000 rounds of bullets and then declare it wasn't the gun, but the man who killed 340 children - all because you have a platitude.
Anyone with a weapon I can't defend against that can kill me is a danger to me. The question is of how great a danger?
No government, no society, could function under your radical platitude given the advancement of weapons for which there is no defense either individually or in mass.
Since you don't grasp the concept that there are insane and murderous people, if your view was policy and law we would all have to live in deep bunkers. You are the terrorists dream. They could kill anyone and as many as they want if you got your way.

What about bombs? Can people have and carry explosives?
 
Bonnie1988 said:
OK, you're alright with an 86 year old man with dementia buying a Mini gun and 10,000 rounds of bullets and then declare it wasn't the gun, but the man who killed 340 children....
Click to expand...
If that what you think then you arent paying attention.

You also havent explained how simple posession causes you harm or creates a clear, present and immediate danger.

all because you have a platitude.
Click to expand...
You mean, all I have is the argument that forms the basis for limiting the 1st amendment right to 'free speech'.

Anyone with a weapon I can't defend against that can kill me is a danger to me. The question is of how great a danger?
Click to expand...
The standard isnt 'any danger' or even 'potential danger', but 'a clear, present and immediate' danger.

No government, no society, could function under your radical platitude given the advancement of weapons for which there is no defense either individually or in mass.
Click to expand...
Unsupportable.

If you cannot answer my questions, then you cannot use the arguments as applied to the first amendment to support the idea that restrictions on simple posession do not create an infringement on the 2nd.

Remember -- we're talking about licencing and registration and background checks, all of which are restrictions on simple posession.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Remember -- we're talking about licencing and registration and background checks, all of which are restrictions on simple posession.
Click to expand...

So your reducing it back to that?
OK, I don't see any Constitutional prohibition against licensing, registration and background checks. None of those prohibit my owning a firearm - unless your claiming that felons. little children and insane people can't be restricted from having firearms as a Constitutional right.

Registration doesn't in any manner prohibit ownership or possession whatsoever. The word "restricted" isn't in the Constitution anyway.

Licensing no more "abridges" the right to bear arms than confirmed voter registration and voting restricts the fundamental right to vote.
 
Last edited:
Bonnie1988 said:
So your reducing it back to that?
OK, I don't see any Constitutional prohibition against licensing, registration and background checks. None of those prohibit my owning a firearm - unless your claiming that felons. little children and insane people can't be restricted from having firearms as a Constitutional right.

Registration doesn't in any manner prohibit ownership or possession whatsoever. The word "restricted" isn't in the Constitution anyway.

Licensing no more "abridges" the right to bear arms than confirmed voter registration and voting restricts the fundamental right to vote.
Click to expand...

Licensing is a form of permission asking. You ask permission to have something, and are given a permit for it. Something which requires permission is not a right, it's a privilege. If to own and bear arms is a right, then you don't need the government's permission to exercise that right if you so choose.
 
I'm fine with registering and licensing and waiting. I am, however, opposed to banning ANY gun.
 
Ikari said:
Licensing is a form of permission asking. You ask permission to have something, and are given a permit for it. Something which requires permission is not a right, it's a privilege. If to own and bear arms is a right, then you don't need the government's permission to exercise that right if you so choose.
Click to expand...

Protesting requires a permit.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Protesting requires a permit.
Click to expand...

exactly. Don't think the usurpation of rights is limited to the 2nd amendment. The "free speech" zones at the main party conventions, requiring permits for exercise of assembly and association, etc. This is the danger in excusing any assault on any of our rights.
 
Goobieman said:
So...
What IS "common sense" gun control?
Please explain how your choices are indeed "common sense".
Click to expand...

Here are a couple common-sense things relating to arms control. I'm sure that you'll dispute that these are common sense, since your position on this issue does not employ common sense, but nevertheless here they are:

  • Banning violent ex-cons from owning guns, at least for a couple years after they're released.
  • Banning the possession of **** like grenade launchers that have absolutely no possible defensive purpose.
 
Just enforce the current laws on the books. If you want to go with harsher punishments for crimes committed with firearms, I'll be happy with that. Be sure to throw the mentally "challenged" part in there as well.

*State sponsored mandatory rifle firearms training on all military ages citizens (18 and up). I'm more concerned with starting a culture of gun safety and respecting firearms than some gang "chulo" figuring out that aiming actually works. Most of those guys already have criminal records and are ineligible anyway.
 
Kandahar said:
Here are a couple common-sense things relating to arms control. I'm sure that you'll dispute that these are common sense, since your position on this issue does not employ common sense, but nevertheless here they are:

  • Banning violent ex-cons from owning guns, at least for a couple years after they're released.
  • Banning the possession of **** like grenade launchers that have absolutely no possible defensive purpose.
Click to expand...

Violent ex-cons are not allowed to own firearms. Period. This has been on the books since...well darn near forever.

Grenade launchers are not firearms under any state law known to man. They are listed as "destructive devices" and owning one requires more paperwork than the US tax code. Every single "legally" owned launcher is tracked very very well.

Granted, umm, *theoretically* making a rifle launchable grenade on the other hand isn't that hard. I'll also deny knowing how to make Semtex as well.
 
Kandahar said:
  • Banning violent ex-cons from owning guns, at least for a couple years after they're released.
Click to expand...
  • I'm okay with that.
    [*]Banning the possession of **** like grenade launchers that have absolutely no possible defensive purpose.
    Click to expand...
    I'm partially okay with this. Grenade launchers and other incindiary weapons fall under explosive ordinance, I have no problem with requiring an explosive ordinance license for those types of weapons, with full psych evaluation and competency testing, simply because a psyco or dummy could pose a clear and present danger.
Click to expand...
 
Bonnie1988 said:
So your reducing it back to that?
OK, I don't see any Constitutional prohibition against licensing, registration and background checks. None of those prohibit my owning a firearm
Click to expand...
"Infringement" covers more than prohibition.
As stated before, they create a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to that right, in a form of prior restraint.
That, necessarily, is an infringement.

unless your claiming that felons. little children and insane people can't be restricted from having firearms as a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur.

Registration doesn't in any manner prohibit ownership or possession whatsoever. The word "restricted" isn't in the Constitution anyway.
Click to expand...
"Infringement" covers more than prohibition.
As stated before, they create a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to that right, in a form of prior restraint.
That, necessarily, is an infringement.

Licensing no more "abridges" the right to bear arms than confirmed voter registration and voting restricts the fundamental right to vote.
Click to expand...
Except that resitration to vote IS an inherent part of the right to vote, as it ensures that the voter is voting with the correct ballot.

And so...
If you cannot answer my questions, then you cannot use those arguments as applied to the first amendment to support the idea that restrictions on simple posession do not create an infringement on the 2nd.
 
Last edited:
Kernel Sanders said:
Protesting requires a permit.
Click to expand...
Only based on time/place/manner, and if you are protesting on public property.
This doesnt in any way create an argument that you can require a permit for simple posession of a firearm.
 
Kandahar said:
Here are a couple common-sense things relating to arms control. I'm sure that you'll dispute that these are common sense, since your position on this issue does not employ common sense...
Click to expand...
If that were true, then someone would be able to create a sound argument against my position. Haven't seen that yet, so...

Banning violent ex-cons from owning guns, at least for a couple years after they're released.
Click to expand...
I dont believe I've ever posted anything that would imply I disagree with thois (see: poll results)

Banning the possession of **** like grenade launchers that have absolutely no possible defensive purpose.
Click to expand...
The issue here is gun control.
Arguments regarding weapons other than guns need not apply.
Never mind that there is an easily made argument that grenade launchers qualify as 'arms' as the temr is used in the 2nd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom