• 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!

Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?

Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?

  • Total voters
    10
Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Pursuant to my conversation with Tucker... :2wave:

In order to stop criminals from illegally buying guns in a manner that does NOT infringe on the rights of the law abiding, I argue that, upon conviction, the state should tattoo a large red F on their foreheads.

In alternate, I would have a similar F placed onto their driver's license, as part of the background behind the personal information, in a manner plainly visible to anyone looking at it.

Other letters may be used to denote other legal handicaps, as necessary.

This would prevent criminals from getting guns (from gun dealers, anyway)
This would not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?
If not, why not?

<poll pending>
Options:
Yes
No
 
Crooks would find a way arounf the F on the DL. They could forge the DL and IMHO forge a database.
 
winston53660 said:
No I do not. I have no problem with a waiting period so multiple checks can be made.
Click to expand...
And you oppose it... because criminals can get around it?
Correct?
 
Goobieman said:
And you oppose it... because criminals can get around it?
Correct?
Click to expand...

I oppose it because I see it as a more flawed system than say a waiting period. BTW I do not think any system is perfect.
 
winston53660 said:
I oppose it because I see it as a more flawed system than say a waiting period..
Click to expand...
How so?
And how is the infringement of the rights of the law abiding, created by the prior restraint created by the waiting period/background check, not a larger flaw?
 
What, like the Scarlet Letter? Hardly. First off, we've done away with public ridicule as a form of punishment. Second, it's easily defeated. Third, WTF is the point? One convicted of felony is in a computer base and if they want to buy anything requiring one to not be a felon, I can't see how hard it would be to look it up. In fact, that's as far as I'm willing to go in terms of gun control. I don't even really like it that much, but if it's immediate and is the only thing to be checked, then it's not terrible.
 
Ikari said:
What, like the Scarlet Letter? Hardly. First off, we've done away with public ridicule as a form of punishment.
Click to expand...
I wasnt really serious about that, which is why I offered the idea of the letter on the DL
And, in any event, is it all that different from requiring someone to register as a sex offender or issuing someone convicted of a DUI a distinctive license plate?

Second, it's easily defeated.
Click to expand...
As is most gun control.

Third, WTF is the point?
Click to expand...
I thought that was clear:
-This would prevent criminals from getting guns (from gun dealers, anyway)
-This would not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
-This would prevent criminals from getting guns (from gun dealers, anyway)
Click to expand...

But as we agreed that this was easily defeated, then the above statement becomes false. If easily defeated, it won't prevent criminals from getting guns.
 
Goobieman said:
How so?
And how is the infringement of the rights of the law abiding,
Click to expand...

I never said it was.

created by the prior restraint created by the waiting period/background check, not a larger flaw?
Click to expand...


I don't see it as a flaw like you do. I can wait three days to get my gun. Nor do I have a problem registering with DHS and the FBI when I buy photo chemicals.
 
Ikari said:
But as we agreed that this was easily defeated, then the above statement becomes false. If easily defeated, it won't prevent criminals from getting guns.
Click to expand...
If "easily defeated" is your argument, then you cannot support any gun control at all, as it is all 'easily defeated'.
 
winston53660 said:
I don't see it as a flaw like you do. I can wait three days to get my gun. Nor do I have a problem registering with DHS and the FBI when I buy photo chemicals.
Click to expand...
You dont see the violation of the rights of the law abiding as a 'flaw'?
 
Goobieman said:
If "easily defeated" is your argument, then you cannot support any gun control at all, as it is all 'easily defeated'.
Click to expand...

Have you read any of my arguments ever? Since when have I supported gun "control"? The whole of it's a bad idea. In fact in this thread itself I said as far as I could go would be an immediate check to see if someone is a felon or not; other than that there should be nothing.

Also, there should be no restriction on gun "assault rifle" or fully automatic or any of it.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
I don't see 72 hours as a violation of rights
Click to expand...
A right delayed is not a right denied?

What if the police were able to get a warrant 72 hours after they tapped your telephone, or searched your house?

What if the state was able to force you to asnwer their questions for 72 hours before they allowed you to NOT answer their questions under the 5th amendment?

What about the much-discussed prior-restraint parallel created by the check itself?
 
Goobieman said:
A right delayed is not a right denied?

What if the police were able to get a warrant 72 hours after they tapped your telephone, or searched your house?

What if the state was able to force you to asnwer their questions for 72 hours before they allowed you to NOT answer their questions under the 5th amendment?

What about the much-discussed prior-restraint parallel created by the check itself?
Click to expand...


I think you have the answers to all your own questions.

If there is a Constitutional limit on felons possessing fire arms I see no infringement on the common citizens rights to make sure they are not felon.
 
winston53660 said:
I think you have the answers to all your own questions.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I do -- you dont want to have to defend your argument that a 72 hour delay of the exercise of a right is a not a violation of said right.

If there is a Constitutional limit on felons possessing fire arms I see no infringement on the common citizens rights to make sure they are not felon.
Click to expand...
You cannot prohibit someone from exercising their rights on the grounds that they -might- be committing a crime, allowing them only to exercise that roght -after- you determine that they are not commiting said crime.
This is called prior restraint, and is unconstitutional.
 
Goobieman said:
Pursuant to my conversation with Tucker... :2wave:

In order to stop criminals from illegally buying guns in a manner that does NOT infringe on the rights of the law abiding, I argue that, upon conviction, the state should tattoo a large red F on their foreheads.

In alternate, I would have a similar F placed onto their driver's license, as part of the background behind the personal information, in a manner plainly visible to anyone looking at it.

Other letters may be used to denote other legal handicaps, as necessary.

This would prevent criminals from getting guns (from gun dealers, anyway)
This would not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?
If not, why not?

<poll pending>
Options:
Yes
No
Click to expand...

I used to think that felons should not be allowed to purchase fire arms after they serve their time and get out of prison. So as long as a individual served his time in prison he should not be denied his 2nd amendment rights.Technically that individual would not be a criminal anymore once he finished serving his time behind bars, he would be a law abiding citizen. I could maybe see attaching a waiting period as part of someone' punishment and requiring IDs and driver's licenses to show that individual must wait a certain number of years or months before being able to purchase fire arms.
 
Goobieman said:
Indeed, I do -- you dont want to have to defend your argument that a 72 hour delay of the exercise of a right is a not a violation of said right.


You cannot prohibit someone from exercising their rights on the grounds that they -might- be committing a crime, allowing them only to exercise that roght -after- you determine that they are not commiting said crime.
This is called prior restraint, and is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Buy all the guns you want to as long as you are not a felon. Giving three days to check records is not a violation of your rights. Unless you think felons with criminal records have a right to buy guns. There are 50 states with various sytems!!!!!

Do you agree or disagree that it is Constitutional for felons being bared from purchasing fire arms?
 
winston53660 said:
Giving three days to check records is not a violation of your rights.
Click to expand...
What if the police were able to get a warrant 72 hours after they tapped your telephone, or searched your house?

What if the state was able to force you to asnwer their questions for 72 hours before they allowed you to NOT answer their questions under the 5th amendment?

What about the much-discussed prior-restraint parallel created by the check itself?

You certainly beleive that these things are also not a violation of your rights -- right?

Unless you think felons with criminal records have a right to buy guns.
Click to expand...
Until 1968 -- they did.

Do you agree or disagree that it is Constitutional for felons being bared from purchasing fire arms?
Click to expand...
That's not the item up for discussion.
 
Goobieman said:
What if the police were able to get a warrant 72 hours after they tapped your telephone, or searched your house?

What if the state was able to force you to asnwer their questions for 72 hours before they allowed you to NOT answer their questions under the 5th amendment?

What about the much-discussed prior-restraint parallel created by the check itself?

You certainly beleive that these things are also not a violation of your rights -- right?


Until 1968 -- they did.


That's not the item up for discussion.
Click to expand...

Okay nevermind.
 
I believe we should make a "666" program. It will be a government sponsored secure database of individuals. People would have a card/ or something you tattoo/ surgically implant something to your right hand or forehead that can not be copied. It will be like an infallible ID system where people can not buy/sell things without getting an OK from the system.

If I had any political power, I would do this.:twisted:
 
winston53660 said:
I don't see 72 hours as a violation of rights. You can still get your gun.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should wait 72 hours before uttering any comment about politics.

waiting periods have no usefulness and thus on that ground alone have no business being part of our laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom