• 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
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.
YOU not minding your rights being infringed does not create an argument that is is OK to infringe on the rights of everyone else.

I'll accept that as you agreeing that requiring a license to exercise a 2nd amendment right is an infringement of same.

The same way I prove I have the right to vote (registering)...
Registration is pursuant to an inherent part of the right to vote - primarily, the determination of WHERE you shold vote. Voter registration is, therefore not an an infringement.

With the 2nd amendment it is a infringement on the right if the federal government denies the right.
Explain how the 14th amendment does not apply the protection of the 2nd to actions taken by the states.
 
What's there to change?
The part where you said that "the right to bare arms is the only right that you can be legally denied".

Its BEAR arms, BTW.
 
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.

You can play servant to the government all you want. I won't stop you. But I do mind having any of my rights infringed upon and I will not accept government treason against me.
 
The part where you said that "the right to bare arms is the only right that you can be legally denied".

Its BEAR arms, BTW.

If there are other rights that are legally denied does it change this topic? Is freedom of speech or abortion affected by these other rights that are denied? If not then this tangent is pointless.
 
You can play servant to the government all you want. I won't stop you. But I do mind having any of my rights infringed upon and I will not accept government treason against me.

I don't see it as playing servant. I am telling the government what I want them to do and as citizens we can take that away from them as well.

Both of you and Goobieman seem to be under the impression I want my ideals to be law. That is not the case. I am merely trying to get a better understanding of both sides. I am not saying my way is right or better. My goal is to somehow stop those who have an intent to do harm from owning guns and this is the only way I can see doing this. I am definitely open to other suggestions.
 
If there are other rights that are legally denied does it change this topic?
It does when your argument is based on the claim that the ONLY right that is legally denied....

And thus:
Its amazing, the double-standard held by most on the left, when dealing with rights.
 
....My goal is to somehow stop those who have an intent to do harm from owning guns and this is the only way I can see doing this. I am definitely open to other suggestions.
As noted before:

Without creating prior restraint?
You cannot.
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.
 
YOU not minding your rights being infringed does not create an argument that is is OK to infringe on the rights of everyone else.

Which is one of the great things about living in a Democracy. Law isn't created by an individual.

I'll accept that as you agreeing that requiring a license to exercise a 2nd amendment right is an infringement of same.

By the federal government. Yes.



Registration is pursuant to an inherent part of the right to vote - primarily, the determination of WHERE you shold vote. Voter registration is, therefore not an an infringement.
It also denies the right to vote if you are not eligible for the right (no being of age). Are you accepting of this infringement on the right to vote? You seem to be against this same check of denying people the right to the 2nd amendment.


Explain how the 14th amendment does not apply the protection of the 2nd to actions taken by the states.
I'll get back to you on this. Have to do research, which I don't have time do now.
 
It does when your argument is based on the claim that the ONLY right that is legally denied....

And thus:
Its amazing, the double-standard held by most on the left, when dealing with rights.

Ok sorry. Let me rephrase. "Of the rights; bear arms, free speech, and abortion (though abortion itself is not technically a right stated in the constitution?), bear arms is the only right that is legally denied."

If you have examples of people being legally denied their right to free speech please let me know and I'll retract the statement.

:roll:
 
Which is one of the great things about living in a Democracy. Law isn't created by an individual.
And the great thing about having a Constitution?
It limits what the majority can do to the rights of the minority.

By the federal government. Yes.
Explain how the 14th amendment does not apply the protection of the 2nd to actions taken by the states.

It also denies the right to vote if you are not eligible for the right (no being of age). Are you accepting of this infringement on the right to vote?
That's not an infringement of the right to vote, as all the things you're describing are limitations on the right -inherent- to that right.

You seem to be against this same check of denying people the right to the 2nd amendment.
Yes... for the reason I have stated three times, each time left unaddressed by you.
 
Ok sorry. Let me rephrase. "Of the rights; bear arms, free speech, and abortion (though abortion itself is not technically a right stated in the constitution?), bear arms is the only right that is legally denied."
Again, not so. Abortions are legally denied under numerous conditions.
 
That's not an infringement of the right to vote, as all the things you're describing are limitations on the right -inherent- to that right.

So being of age to vote is a limitation of the right to vote. Thus, it is NOT an infringement for the citizen to prove to the government they are of age before they are given their right to vote.

How is proving you are not a convicted criminal, are of age, and are not mentally handicapped infringements but not limitations of the right to bear arms like the above with voting?
 
Last edited:
Again, not so. Abortions are legally denied under numerous conditions.

I didn't know abortions were called out specifically in the constitution. Where is "right to an abortion" in the constitution?
 
So being of age to vote is a limitation of the right to vote. So it is accepted and not an infringement. So it is ok for the citizen to prove they are of age before they are given their right to vote.

How is are not being a convicted criminal, being of age, and not being mentally handicapped infringements but not limitations of the right to bear arms like the above with voting?
You are talking about two different things here.
LICENSING is a precondition not inherent to the right, and thus, an infringement.
BACKGROUND CHECKS are a form of prior restraint, and thus, an infringement.
 
I didn't know abortions were called out specifically in the constitution. Where is "right to an abortion" in the constitution?
-You- included abortion in -your- list.
 
You are talking about two different things here.
LICENSING is a precondition not inherent to the right, and thus, an infringement.
BACKGROUND CHECKS are a form of prior restraint, and thus, an infringement.

How are they two different things? There are specific requirements you must meet to be eligible for the right as a citizen. You seem to be OK with the requirements being checked in regards to the right to vote but against the requirements being checked in regards to the right to bear arms.

Given your above statement, checking that I am of age is prior restraint and an infringement to my right to vote isn't it?
 
-You- included abortion in -your- list.

I was only responding to your initial inclusion...

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****.
 
How are they two different things?
What part of my explanation of you not understand?

One infringement derives from a precondition not inherent to a right
The other infrinvemenr defives from a prior restraint.

These are different on their face.
 
Ok sorry. Let me rephrase. "Of the rights; bear arms, free speech, and abortion (though abortion itself is not technically a right stated in the constitution?), bear arms is the only right that is legally denied."

If you have examples of people being legally denied their right to free speech please let me know and I'll retract the statement.

:roll:

Can't incite to riot for some reason. Apparently can't have a bumper sticker which says "Abort Obama, not fetuses". Dissent is something the government doesn't take too kindly to. It's the reason why we should always fight to have all of our rights upheld to the full extent. You can find ways to make sure people who shouldn't have them don't get them. But you can't do so in a way which infringes upon my rights. And because that's they way we set our system up, people who shouldn't get guns will sometimes get guns. That's a consequence of freedom.
 
What part of my explanation of you not understand?

One infringement derives from a precondition not inherent to a right
The other infrinvemenr defives from a prior restraint.

These are different on their face.

Both have age restrictions. How is proving you are a specific age a "not inherent right" for one and a "prior restraint" of the other?
 
Both have age restrictions. How is proving you are a specific age a "not inherent right" for one and a "prior restraint" of the other?
Again:
You have brought up the concept of licensing, and the seperate concept of background checks.

Licensing is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same. This is an infringement. This differes from the precondition of voter registration because voter registration determines, most imnportantly, where your vote is to be cast, which IS an inherent part of the right to vote -- and so, is NOT an infringement.

A secondary effect of voter registration is to determine the identity of the voter. This determines name, age, residency, etc -- all inherent parts of the right to vote, and therefore, not an infringement. This is the same as presenting an ID when buying a gun.

Background checks create a form of prior restraint. This is an infringement. Prior restraint is the condition of the government preventing you from exercising your right on the basis that you MIGHT commit a crime if you were to be free to act -- your right is withheld 'just in case'. This is exactly what a background check does, 'just in case' you are a felon, etc.

No one has ever argued that voter registration is prior restraint, becase, of its face, it is not.
 
Licensing is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same. This is an infringement. This differes from the precondition of voter registration because voter registration determines, most imnportantly, where your vote is to be cast, which IS an inherent part of the right to vote -- and so, is NOT an infringement.

A secondary effect of voter registration is to determine the identity of the voter. This determines name, age, residency, etc -- all inherent parts of the right to vote, and therefore, not an infringement. This is the same as presenting an ID when buying a gun.

If on a persons ID they were flagged as being a convicted criminal (for general purposes) and were denied the ability to purchase a gun by a gun seller, it would it be an infringement?


Background checks create a form of prior restraint. This is an infringement. Prior restraint is the condition of the government preventing you from exercising your right on the basis that you MIGHT commit a crime if you were to be free to act -- your right is withheld 'just in case'. This is exactly what a background check does, 'just in case' you are a felon, etc.
Background check is not to check that you "might" commit a crime. It is to see that you you have not committed a crime in the past (removing your right to bare arms). It is a check to see 'just in case' it is illegal for you to own a gun.


No one has ever argued that voter registration is prior restraint, becase, of its face, it is not.
I have the right to vote as long as I meet specific requirements (age, registered in area, citizen, etc.). I am denied my right to vote until I can prove I meet these requirements.

As someone purchasing a gun I must prove that I meet the requirements to the right to bear arms (age, citizen, not convicted criminal).

How are those not the same prior-restraints?
 
Last edited:
How are those not the same prior-restraints?
These things have been explained to you in the simplest terms possible.
If you do not yet understand, there's nothing I can do for you.
 
These things have been explained to you in the simplest terms possible.
If you do not yet understand, there's nothing I can do for you.

Both examples are requirements for you to qualify for the right. I don't know who much simpler it gets then that.

Unless of course you believe someone underage or convicted criminals do have the right to bear arms?
 
How does a convicted criminal not have the right to bear arms? Rights are innate and inalienable; of course they do. It's just that the State has used force to suppress the exercise of that right. On that note, I do believe that criminals should have the full of their rights recognized again once their punishment is done in full, meaning jail time, fines, probation, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom