• 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!

Does registration infringe on your right to...

Which of these registration requirements violate your rights?

  • Total voters
    29
other said:
Federal sales taxes beyond what are specifically allowed within the constitution are certainly infringements.
Click to expand...

Not according to Harshaw and Goobieman, but given their recent postings, consistency is not strong with those two.

You don't pay a sales tax if you purchase from a private individual. You must when you purchase from a licensed dealer because, like many other areas, the government has encroached.
Click to expand...

First, that's tax evasion, you must legally pay sale taxes if you purchase from a private individual. Now, that doesn't stop people from not paying sale taxes though.
 
obvious Child said:
Neither is a sale tax. A sales tax is government coming into the transaction and placing artificial barriers that interfere with the normal transaction. If that sale tax is high enough, it can bar, prevent or delay the purchase. How does that not infringe?
Click to expand...

If it's intended to prevent purchase of the item, then it does.

If it's just a standard tax which applies to sales of all kinds, then it doesn't.
 
obvious Child said:
Except that sale taxes are not actually related to the real price of the firearm. They are an artificial add on that in no way represents the true value/cost/profit to the seller/buyer.

By your reasoning, a sale tax of $1 billion on a $5 item is not an infringement, even if it effectively bans people from owning things.

If sale tax made the purchase out of your reach for the time being, isn't that a delay? Doesn't that prevent you from owning it?

You fail to realize I am merely using Goobieman's definition of anything that prevents or delays. If you do not like that definition, take it up with him.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Goobieman would disagree that it's what he's saying, but I'll leave it up to him. As for the rest of this, see my post immediately above.
 
Harshaw said:
If it's intended to prevent purchase of the item, then it does.

If it's just a standard tax which applies to sales of all kinds, then it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Because...

Intention is irrelevant. What matters is what it actually causes.

Again, if the sale tax causes a delay, prevention or effective ban, how does that not equate to an infringement independent of the intention?

Frankly speaking, you people don't like the fact that I've taken Goobieman's exceedingly vague definition and used it against you.

I'm sure Goobieman would disagree that it's what he's saying, but I'll leave it up to him. As for the rest of this, see my post immediately above.
Click to expand...

Of course he would, but it is irrelevant. The definition he is using results in that outcome. Let this be a lesson: define your key words.
 
obvious Child said:
Because...

Intention is irrelevant. What matters is what it actually causes.

Again, if the sale tax causes a delay, prevention or effective ban, how does that not equate to an infringement independent of the intention?
Click to expand...

If you don't intend to prevent or delay a sale, you don't put on a tax which would do so.

If you do -- if you put, say, a 5000% tax on the purchase of firearms -- the intent and infringement are both obvious.


Frankly speaking, you people don't like the fact that I've taken Goobieman's exceedingly vague definition and used it against you.
Click to expand...

Frankly speaking, you're coming off as a pedantic adolescent. :roll:
 
obvious Child said:
First, that's tax evasion, you must legally pay sale taxes if you purchase from a private individual. Now, that doesn't stop people from not paying sale taxes though.
Click to expand...

aren't these taxes placed on the party who sold the item--ie. usually they pay out but adjust prices to consumers to cover the costs? Since when does a private individual, (not a private business), have to provide itemized reports of every personal sale to the government--other than the income tax, which isn't the sales tax?
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Not according to Harshaw and Goobieman, but given their recent postings, consistency is not strong with those two.
Click to expand...

:confused:

You can point out an inconsistency?



First, that's tax evasion, you must legally pay sale taxes if you purchase from a private individual. Now, that doesn't stop people from not paying sale taxes though.
Click to expand...

You don't pay sales tax if you're not making a retail purchase.
 
obvious Child said:
Therefore, having to pay for the gun is an infringement. By the Constitution, all firearms should be free. Again, how insane do you want to go?
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understad the issue sufficiently enough to have this comversation.

The 2nd protects the right from infringement through government action.
If I have a gun and you want it, my requiring you to buy it from me does not violate the Constitution because I am not the government.

AND, even if the government did require you to purchase the firearm, this requirement does not infringe your right to arms because -purchasing- the arms in question is an inherent part of the exercise of that right.

Thus, your argument fails.

Not that you understand why.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
You fail to realize I am merely using Goobieman's definition of anything that prevents or delays. If you do not like that definition, take it up with him.
Click to expand...
Strawman. I havent argued anything even remotely close to that.
 
Goobieman said:
Does the 2nd amendment allow the government to force you to register with said governent before you buy a gun?
Click to expand...

No, nor does it forbid it. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject. It also doesn't mention nuclear weapons. What's your point?
 
Cephus said:
No, nor does it forbid it. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject. It also doesn't mention nuclear weapons. What's your point?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- I didnt see your answer to the other two questons.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- I didnt see your answer to the other two questons.
Click to expand...

Because they're off-topic for what we were discussing. Does the government require you to register for those things? No. Could it? Yes, within reason. You have 'freedom to associate' concerns, certainly, but there are restrictions on that as well. Cities have restricted the rights of gang members to congregate for the purpose of planning or committing crimes as well, so I suppose it's possible to do it for other things. It would just be a public relations nightmare.
 
Cephus said:
Because they're off-topic for what we were discussing.
Click to expand...
You will find both of those things included in the poll options, and so, both are on toipic.

Does the government require you to register for those things? No. Could it? Yes, within reason.
Click to expand...
You REALLY think that the goverment forcing you to register with it before you could go to a political rally and/or church does not violate the 1st amendment?

Really?
 
winston53660 said:
So does having a gun in public.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. A holstered, concealed gun does not present a danger. Hell open carry doesn't present a danger. As I said, if someone is threateningly brandishing a gun, then yes. Till that point, no.
 
Goobieman said:
You will find both of those things included in the poll options, and so, both are on toipic.
Click to expand...

That's not what we, as individuals, were discussing. On-topic for the thread and on-topic for any individual discussion within the thread are not necessarily the same thing.

You REALLY think that the goverment forcing you to register with it before you could go to a political rally and/or church does not violate the 1st amendment?

Really?
Click to expand...

So long as registration was free and easy to do, then no, it does not. Freedom of association, like it or not, is not universal, any more than freedom of speech is. Look at decisions like Runyon vs. McCrary for limitations to the freedom of associations. Like it or not, nothing in the Constitution is absolute or unrestricted.
 
Cephus said:
That's not what we, as individuals, were discussing. On-topic for the thread and on-topic for any individual discussion within the thread are not necessarily the same thing.
Click to expand...
That still doesnt make them off topic -- they were included for comparative purposes and to see if you are consistent.

So long as registration was free and easy to do, then no, it does not.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that the first woman that has to register herself with the government before she can have an abortion will disagree with you.

And, while I -do- compliment you on your consistency, the argument that the requirement to register yourself with the government before you exercise your rights, when said rgistration is not an interent part of that right, creates an infringement and therefore violates the constitution still stands.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sure that the first woman that has to register herself with the government before she can have an abortion will disagree with you.
Click to expand...

She might not like it, but so long as said registration, as I said, is free and easy and does not stop her in any way from exercising said right, I've got no problem with it. In fact, every medical procedure anyone ever has done goes into their permanent medical records, a form of registration already.

And, while I -do- compliment you on your consistency, the argument that the requirement to register yourself with the government before you exercise your rights, when said rgistration is not an interent part of that right, creates an infringement and therefore violates the constitution still stands.
Click to expand...

It's not an inherent part of the right, nor is it inherently excluded from the right. Where the rights are spelled out, it does not specifically exclude registration, therefore you cannot say that it is explicitly restricted.
 
Cephus said:
She might not like it, but so long as said registration, as I said, is free and easy and does not stop her in any way from exercising said right, I've got no problem with it. In fact, every medical procedure anyone ever has done goes into their permanent medical records, a form of registration already.
Click to expand...
I assure you that if there were ever any attempt to require such a registration, there woudl be innumerable, completely sound, arguments levied against it.

"Permanent medical records" are not kept by the government, and so are not comparable.

It's not an inherent part of the right, nor is it inherently excluded from the right. Where the rights are spelled out, it does not specifically exclude registration, therefore you cannot say that it is explicitly restricted.
Click to expand...
The point is that if you restrain the exercise of a right that when said restraint is not derived from an inherent part of that right -- that is, something that -must- be done in order to exercise the right, not because of some legislative requirement but because of the nature of the right itself -- then you're infringing that right by creating an arbitrary impediment to its exercise.

The constitution -specifically- restrains the government from infringing the right to arms.
 
Goobieman said:
The constitution -specifically- restrains the government from infringing the right to arms.
Click to expand...

Actually, the constitution -specifically- mentions the rights in reference to a well regulated militia. Funny how most gun-advocates entirely ignore the first 13 words of the second amendment, isn't it?
 
Cephus said:
Actually, the constitution -specifically- mentions the rights in reference to a well regulated militia. Funny how most gun-advocates entirely ignore the first 13 words of the second amendment, isn't it?
Click to expand...
I see you iognored the rest of my post. I'll assume its because you have no counter, ad as such, my argument stands.

As for your comment above -- this question has been settled and your argument to that end has been negated.
 
Cephus said:
Actually, the constitution -specifically- mentions the rights in reference to a well regulated militia. Funny how most gun-advocates entirely ignore the first 13 words of the second amendment, isn't it?
Click to expand...

How is that by now, people aren't embarrassed to trudge out this old trope? People who don't know any better, I guess.
 
Harshaw said:
How is that by now, people aren't embarrassed to trudge out this old trope? People who don't know any better, I guess.
Click to expand...

What, has the second amendment been re-written? Quick, someone inform the National Archives so they can get to work with the white-out! :doh
 
Cephus said:
What, has the second amendment been re-written? Quick, someone inform the National Archives so they can get to work with the white-out! :doh
Click to expand...
Continuing with this particlar line of inanity only sodomizes your credibility.
 
The requirement to register... to vote
I think this is a legitimate registration because of the possibility of voter fraud as well as the logistical issues that would come up for organizing a national election.
... to have an abortion/... to buy a gun
Nope, I think the government should be able to keep track of these based on the potential for abuse of either. Do we really want people running around with AK-47s unchecked?
... to attend a political rally
I think this is unneeded, as long as you also hold that the government has a right to stop them if they turn out violent.
... to send a letter to the editor/... to publish a letter to the editor
I don't really understand these too well. I think you'd need to register to send a letter to the editor based on logistical factors and also, isn't the point of publishing sort of to take credit for it?
... to go to church
While I'm not religious, I don't see any reason the government needs to see if you're going to a religious place and where it is. It just seems like potential abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom