• 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!

Should you have to purchase insurance to exercise constitutional rights?

Should you have purchase insurance to exercise constitutional rights?

  • Total voters
    24
Gibberish said:
Exactly.

Licensing allows for multiple things. 1) It allows tracking of education and ability. Just as a drivers license does. 2) It clearly defines who has the right to carry/own a weapon. This expedites things for gun sellers/owners/ and law enforcement.
Click to expand...

The last one there needs no expedition. That one needs to be restricted as much as possible. And licensing is a bad bad bad idea that only creates government databasing on people to track and monitor. The government does not have that right. Hell, the government doesn't have rights at all; it merely has duty, privilege, and responsibility granted to it by the People. I have the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't matter anything else. It doesn't matter if I've taken classes, it doesn't matter how "educated" I am, it doesn't matter what the government says I have to do or what I can or can't own. I have the right to keep and bear arms. Done. I don't need permission to exercise that right, it's a right. Hell, I don't see why we need a CCW to conceal carry; I should be able to conceal carry without notifying the government or getting their permission. And open carry should be assumed legal as well, I have the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I am surprised that liberals haven't voted yes yet,perhaps I should have worded the poll "Should you have to purchase liability insurance to own firearms?" to see if they'll vote yes.
Click to expand...

It's a rather obvious question that anyone should know the answer to. There should be no conditions to you exercising your rights as long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others. It's not a conservative ideology, it's common sense.
 
Gibberish said:
Licensing allows for multiple things.
Click to expand...
Asking the government for permission to exercise a right is an infringement of that right, by creating a precindition to the exercise not inherent to same.

1)
It allows tracking of education and ability. Just as a drivers license does.
Click to expand...
This fails on at least three counts:
-You do not have to have any degree of education to exercise a right.
-You do not have to have any degree of ability to exercise a right.
-You do not have a right to drive on public roads.

2) It clearly defines who has the right to carry/own a weapon.
Click to expand...
The law already does this.

This expedites things for gun sellers/owners/ and law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Used in this manner, a license is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
 
Gibberish said:
Are there laws that restrict specific persons from exercising the free speech right? If not, then no they don't need a license.
Click to expand...
This - "free speech" - has nothing to do with what I said.

YOU argue that:
You should however be proven you qualify for said right
Click to expand...
So... should journalists be forced to get a license?
If not, why not?
 
Orius said:
It's a rather obvious question that anyone should know the answer to.
Click to expand...

Most anti-2nd amendment nuts however would rather see the 2nd amendment repealed or try to make as many laws as possible to make it extremely hard to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. Or they flat deny it is a individual right in order to justify their support for anti-2nd amendment laws like licenses,registrations,waiting periods and etc. I am sure that if I asked " Should you have to purchase liability insurance to in order to purchase and keep fire arms?" ,thus removing any association of constitutional rights from the question, they would come out of the woodwork to vote yes. Perhaps I will ask the same poll question on a very liberal forum to see if the results are the same as this one.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
This - "free speech" - has nothing to do with what I said.

YOU argue that:

So... should journalists be forced to get a license?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...

The FCC grants a license to broadcasters and if a journalists breaks the rules the broadcaster will get fined and or reprimanded.
 
winston53660 said:
The FCC grants a license to broadcasters and if a journalists breaks the rules the broadcaster will get fined and or reprimanded.
Click to expand...

The FCC (Federal Commie Commission is what I call them) should only enforce piracy laws and that's it. No censorship of any kind.
 
winston53660 said:
The FCC grants a license to broadcasters...
Click to expand...
This is a regulatory permit to use public airwaves, not a license to exercise your rights as a journalist.

It also applies to media broadcast on public airwaves -- it doesnt cover print/cable/internet media.

So, my question stands:
Under the argument presented, should journalists be forced to get a license?
If not, why not?
 
Goobieman said:
This is a regulatory permit to use public airwaves, not a license to exercise your rights as a journalist.

It also applies to media broadcast on public airwaves -- it doesnt cover print/cable/internet media.

So, my question stands:
Under the argument presented, should journalists be forced to get a license?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...

No journalists should not have to get a license since broadcasters already have too.
 
winston53660 said:
No journalists should not have to get a license since broadcasters already have too.
Click to expand...
I am not at all sure how that follows, especially given that the FCC license you speak of isn't a license as the term is used in the argument under scrutiny.
:confused:

So, you disgree with the argument that people should prove that they qualify for a right by getting a license?
 
Goobieman said:
So... should journalists be forced to get a license?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...

As I said. There is are no restrictions to the right of free speech. Thus, there is no need to qualify anyone, even journalists, in their ability to exercise the right.
 
Ikari said:
The last one there needs no expedition. That one needs to be restricted as much as possible. And licensing is a bad bad bad idea that only creates government databasing on people to track and monitor. The government does not have that right. Hell, the government doesn't have rights at all; it merely has duty, privilege, and responsibility granted to it by the People. I have the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't matter anything else. It doesn't matter if I've taken classes, it doesn't matter how "educated" I am, it doesn't matter what the government says I have to do or what I can or can't own. I have the right to keep and bear arms. Done. I don't need permission to exercise that right, it's a right. Hell, I don't see why we need a CCW to conceal carry; I should be able to conceal carry without notifying the government or getting their permission. And open carry should be assumed legal as well, I have the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

What if you don't have the right to bare arms? You are a criminal, mentally handicapped, or a child.

If licensing is not put into practice how are those restrictions to be enforced if there is no way for gun sellers to tell that your right to bare arms is restricted?

If you can offer another alternative I would most likely before it. I just can't fathom another way to stop restricted individuals from openly purchasing guns that are illegal for them to own.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Asking the government for permission to exercise a right is an infringement of that right, by creating a precindition to the exercise not inherent to same.

This fails on at least three counts:
-You do not have to have any degree of education to exercise a right.
-You do not have to have any degree of ability to exercise a right.
-You do not have a right to drive on public roads.

The law already does this.

Used in this manner, a license is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
Click to expand...

Please tell me exactly who you would stop convicted criminals, mentally handicapped, and children from purchasing guns if there are no checks in place when a gun purchase is made.
 
Gibberish said:
What if you don't have the right to bare arms? You are a criminal, mentally handicapped, or a child.

If licensing is not put into practice how are those restrictions to be enforced if there is no way for gun sellers to tell that your right to bare arms is restricted?
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like my ****ing problem. My rights can not be infringed upon, so I guess the State will have to find another way to look after those things which does not infringe upon my rights. The State wants to watch over that, that's their problem, not mine. They damned well best keep their grubby little hands off my rights, my freedom, my liberty, and my property.
 
Ikari said:
Doesn't sound like my ****ing problem. My rights can not be infringed upon, so I guess the State will have to find another way to look after those things which does not infringe upon my rights. The State wants to watch over that, that's their problem, not mine. They damned well best keep their grubby little hands off my rights, my freedom, my liberty, and my property.
Click to expand...

What right of yours is being in fringed on? You aren't being denied the right to bare arms. You can freely buy any weapon available to the public.
 
Gibberish said:
Please tell me exactly [how] you would stop convicted criminals, mentally handicapped, and children from purchasing guns if there are no checks in place when a gun purchase is made.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact you haven't done anything to counter the argument in my post...

Without creating prior restraint?
You cannot.
But then, the entire idea that you should be able to infringe on peoples' rights in order to do so, as evidenced by the entire concept of prior restraint, is faulty.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
What right of yours is being in fringed on? You aren't being denied the right to bare arms
Click to expand...
You are denied that right until you have a license to do so.
Said license is a precondition to the exercise of right, not ineherent to same.
-That- is an infringement.
 
Gibberish said:
What right of yours is being in fringed on? You aren't being denied the right to bare arms. You can freely buy any weapon available to the public.
Click to expand...

If I have to get a license, that's a form of permission. If I have to ask permission, it's not a right but a privilege. I do not have the "privilege" to keep and bear arms. I have the right to keep and bear arms. I do not need the government's permission, I do not need them to hold my hand, I do not need them to database and watch me because I exercise a right. All those are infringements. You are trying to turn a right into a privilege, and for the government to do that is a form of treason.
 
Gibberish said:
As I said. There is are no restrictions to the right of free speech.
Click to expand...
We are discussing the freedom of the press, not free speech.

Youe argument is that to exercise a right, you should have to get a license that proves you qualify for said right.

The operative term here is "proves you qualify" for that right.
'Qualify' is a broad word.

Thus, you have not explained why journalists should not have to have licenses, in order to ensure they meet those qualifications.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You are denied that right until you have a license to do so.
Said license is a precondition to the exercise of right, not ineherent to same.
-That- is an infringement.
Click to expand...

I've talked to many people and it surprises me the number whom do not understand this premise. It's basic, it's fundamental, and I don't think it's being taught anymore. We the People are the sovereign. We the People are in charge. We the People own the government. We the People grated all privilege and power and duty that the government wields. We the People can take all that away at any time we wish. The government obeys We the People or the government can be done away with and replaced with a government which does.
 
Ikari said:
I've talked to many people and it surprises me the number whom do not understand this premise. It's basic, it's fundamental, and I don't think it's being taught anymore. We the People are the sovereign. We the People are in charge. We the People own the government. We the People grated all privilege and power and duty that the government wields. We the People can take all that away at any time we wish. The government obeys We the People or the government can be done away with and replaced with a government which does.
Click to expand...
Its amazing, the double-standard held by most on the left, when dealing with rights.

If someone even suggests adding the restrictions they'd like to place on the right to arms to rights such as free speech or abortion, they go aspe****.
 
Goobieman said:
You are denied that right until you have a license to do so.
Said license is a precondition to the exercise of right, not ineherent to same.
-That- is an infringement.
Click to expand...

I can understand that. Personally though, I don't mind proving that I am eligible for the right if it helps remove the ability to get easily get gun for those illegal to posses guns. The same way I prove I have the right to vote (registering) or enter the country as a citizen when traveling internationally.

With the 2nd amendment it is a infringement on the right if the federal government denies the right. Though they can deny the right for specific groups of people it seems. The states however have the ability to put into place their own restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Its amazing, the double-standard held by most on the left, when dealing with rights.

If someone even suggests adding the restrictions they'd like to place on the right to arms to rights such as free speech or abortion, they go aspe****.
Click to expand...

Mostly because the right to bare arms is the only right that you can be legally denied. Not all citizens have the right to bare arms.

There is no such restriction on free speech, religion, etc.
 
Gibberish said:
Mostly because the right to bare arms is the only right that you can be legally denied.
Click to expand...
I'll give you an opportunity to think about that some more, and then change your post.
 
Goobieman said:
I'll give you an opportunity to think about that some more, and then change your post.
Click to expand...

What's there to change? Do we not legally deny criminals, children, and mentally handicapped from baring arms?

Can a serial killer who just got out of jail go to his nearest gun shop and legally stock up on guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom