• 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 are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?


  • Total voters
    32
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

exactly

pillowheaded utopianesque dreamers are part of the Anti-Rights Coaltion.

They are the ones who actually believe that gun control is crime control. People like Josh Sugarmann, Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady see them as the useful fools of the ARC
I guess we're going to have to wait for Gunsmoke to come on TVLAND again before we get any more pearls of wisdom about how to eradicate guns out of jacksbrat. :shrug:
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I guess we're going to have to wait for Gunsmoke to come on TVLAND again before we get any more pearls of wisdom about how to eradicate guns out of jacksbrat. :shrug:

or

BOSS BOSS DE PLANE DE PLANE

because on his fantasy Island I bet Tattoo could make all the guns disappear
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

It's not his opinion, it's the law of the land.

This is also just someone's opinion.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

This is the reason I believe we need to start getting some control over how many guns are out there flooding the market.

Wouldn't criminals just get them somewhere else? Why should the rights of law abiding citizens be infringed just so crooks and the government are the ones with firearms?

I believe the safety of the people is pushed aside for the profits of the gun runners and they're using the constitution and scare tactics to push their product.

Companies have a right to make money off of something you and I have a constitutional right to just like companies have a right to profit off of bibles,printers, phones, and other things used to exercise first amendment rights.



If every gun sold was licensed to an owner,

Crooks would still get their hands one guns.The only thing your ideas would do is infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. If the government required a license to use a phone, to write, to go to church, to protest, to address grievances to the government, to report the news to print things would you say that the 1st amendment was still a right? The idea of requiring a license for a right is absurd, the whole point of something being a right is that you do not need to ask the government permission to exercise that right. A license does not stop a criminal from buying his gun illegally or stealing it. All it does is give the government a database of who has arms that it can one day use against them.


and some responsibility taken for owning a gun,

There are a some responsibilities for owning a gun.I can't first degree murder, drive by a gas station and randomly shoot bullets at the place, I can not go into a shopping mall and shoot at the mall ceiling. All those things would land me jail/prison, fined and or sued.


it would eventually become more difficult for violent criminals, gang members, and burgulers to get their hands on one.

I was under the impression that those people used illegal firearms, bought their firearms illegally or obtained them illegally. You seem to be under the impression that people who regularly commit crime are going to obey anti-2nd amendment laws.


If we would have started this years ago, we'd all be much safer now.

No we wouldn't.We would be less safe because only the government and crooks would have most of the firearms. Unarmed people say easy targets for criminals.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

This is also just someone's opinion.

Try again nimrod
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

This is also just someone's opinion.
Do you know what the difference is between an opinion and a law? Would it help if I explained it to you?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Do you know what the difference is between an opinion and a law? Would it help if I explained it to you?

advice

wise men don't need it

fools don't heed it
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

advice

wise men don't need it

fools don't heed it
Speaking of fools, I'm still waiting to hear jacksbrat's plan to take all the guns away from bad guys.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Speaking of fools, I'm still waiting to hear jacksbrat's plan to take all the guns away from bad guys.

I think he is looking for some fairy dust and a magic wand

maybe he can walk down the streets of watts, south side of Chicago, the south Bronx and Over-The-Rhine in Cincinnati dressed in a medieval outfit banging a gong and yelling

Bring out your guns

Bring out your guns
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Kind of. It's actually willful endangerment on face if malicious intent can't be proven. The history of where rights end is pretty interesting though, and the thing most people don't seem to understand is that rights all pretty much end in the same way; Time Place Manner.

For instance, owning an automatic.....no problem; firing it in a crowded theater; major problem. It's the same as yelling fire, if there is no clear and present danger in doing so, such as in a park.....it's harder to prove that the right has ended, but in a crowded building......you cause a stampede and you bet you're then liable criminally and potentially civilly for all damages caused. Probably though, my favorite two tests of the right are fighting words and incitement to riot, but hey, those will come up later if the attempted gun grabbers need more debate to realize they lost.

Very nicely put!

You should go into law. :)
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Very nicely put!

You should go into law. :)
Eh, I don't have the patience. Most of those things came from my legal and poli sci requirements in college, fortunately I had phenomenal instructors who not only facilitated knowledge but critical thinking skills.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Your argument hinges on the notion is that there should be an equivalent restriction for every amendment Not every action has equivalent reactions. That is a fallacy.
Show this to be true.

All rights are restricted for the same reason - to protect the rights of others - and all Fundamental Constitutional rights are held to the same standard when considering the constitutionality of those restrcitions.

These principles apply to the 1st just as they do the 2nd, and so whatever practices and principles regarding the former apply equall to the latter.

And so, your 2nd amendment rights, just as your first amendment rights, may be restricted once they reach the point that they cause harm or place someone in immediate, clear and present, danger.

So, again -- what's the equivelant to yelling fire in a theater? Libel? Slander?

The funny thing is, these questions are exceptionally easy to answer; your refusal to do so denotes a desire to not actually have the conversation regarding same because you know it leads to an inevitable conclusion that you simply do not like.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Oh, you mean like if say Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh say something like Obama is coming to get your guns, or that the government is stealing your money, or taking away your freedoms, and someone flies a plane into or blows up a federal building because of it? Yea, I get it.
No, you do not.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

False choice. We can restrict guns from getting in the hands of the bad guys more than we do now, without restricting them from getting into the hands of good guys.
How, exactly?

See, I will fully support any and every gun control law that will keep guns from criminals and not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding.

Thing is, I have yet to see one.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Very nicely put!

You should go into law. :)

People who can think and make sense cannot go into law.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

So basically your idea does not stop criminals from owning firearms and it just gives the government a database which can be used against those who do legally own firearms.
Of course it doesn't stop criminals from owning firearms. I never said it did.

Nothing can stop someone who wishes to own a firearm, or any other at least somewhat easily smuggled item, from acquiring said item.

I was thinking of a database containing information about all violent criminals (I assume something along those lines exists already), which the ID of the potential firearm purchaser could be quickly compared with to ensure a violent criminal was not trying to legally purchase a firearm.

How could that database be used against those who legally own firearms?

All a database of that sort would do is force criminals to purchase weapons from illegal sources.

All it would do is make it more difficult for a criminal to acquire a weapon.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Of course it doesn't stop criminals from owning firearms. I never said it did.

Nothing can stop someone who wishes to own a firearm, or any other at least somewhat easily smuggled item, from acquiring said item.

I was thinking of a database containing information about all violent criminals (I assume something along those lines exists already), which the ID of the potential firearm purchaser could be quickly compared with to ensure a violent criminal was not trying to legally purchase a firearm.

How could that database be used against those who legally own firearms?

All a database of that sort would do is force criminals to purchase weapons from illegal sources.

All it would do is make it more difficult for a criminal to acquire a weapon.

How? right now it is TOTALLY completely and 100% illegal for a felon to posses a firearm. Thus ANYWAY a criminal obtains a firearm is already ILLEGAL
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

How? Right now it is TOTALLY completely and 100% illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. Thus ANY WAY a criminal obtains a firearm is already ILLEGAL
Well, then it would seem completely reasonable for a gun shop to require a background check.

In order to protect themselves against possible lawsuits by those who might be harmed due to a violent criminal purchasing a firearm and using it against someone.

Then again, is it illegal to sell a firearm to a felon?

Hmm.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Well, then it would seem completely reasonable for a gun shop to require a background check.

In order to protect themselves against possible lawsuits by those who might be harmed due to a violent criminal purchasing a firearm and using it against someone.

Then again, is it illegal to sell a firearm to a felon?

Hmm.

how does that make it more difficult for a felon? Does not allowing pharmacies to sell coke or heroin make it tougher for people to get it

a background check might keep felons from buying a gun at a gunshop but not from getting a gun, I know alot about gunshops, I represented one for years, and I spend lots of time in one because its a range where I shoot and i am on the pro staff there as an archer. Guess who also hangs out in gunshops> cops, some even work in such shops to get good deals on guns. and lots of cops like to shoot. I ran into a ranking SA of the DEA in one the other day. what does that mean? criminals, especially local ones avoid gunshops because other than going to court or a police station, they have a really good chance of running into someone who knows them and knows it is illegal for felons to be handling guns
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

how does that make it more difficult for a felon?
Only in that to avoid the background check, they would have to find someone selling weapons illegally, which, depending on the situation, might be more difficult than walking into the local gun store.
Does not allowing pharmacies to sell coke or heroin make it tougher for people to get it?
Yes.

a background check might keep felons from buying a gun at a gunshop but not from getting a gun, I know alot about gunshops, I represented one for years, and I spend lots of time in one because it’s a range where I shoot and I am on the pro staff there as an archer. Guess who also hangs out in gunshops> cops, some even work in such shops to get good deals on guns. and lots of cops like to shoot. I ran into a ranking SA of the DEA in one the other day. what does that mean? criminals, especially local ones avoid gunshops because other than going to court or a police station, they have a really good chance of running into someone who knows them and knows it is illegal for felons to be handling guns
Interesting.

I am not contending that a background check would keep felons from acquiring a gun, as that would be a blatantly false contention.

I am contending that a background check would accomplish the following:
  • Prevent convicted felons from purchasing a firearm from a legal vendor of such.
  • Protect said legal vendor from potential lawsuits leveled against them by persons who were harmed by a firearm purchased in their store by a convicted felon.
  • Prevent convicted felons (except the really stupid ones) from attempting to purchase weapons from legal vendors of such, as they know it would be impossible, due to said background check.
That said, a potential positive (a bit of a stretch, perhaps) would be that if there were not background checks allowed, cops could stake out gun shops and arrest a convicted felon who purchased a firearm there...
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Only in that to avoid the background check, they would have to find someone selling weapons illegally, which, depending on the situation, might be more difficult than walking into the local gun store.
Yes.

Interesting.

I am not contending that a background check would keep felons from acquiring a gun, as that would be a blatantly false contention.

I am contending that a background check would accomplish the following:
  • Prevent convicted felons from purchasing a firearm from a legal vendor of such.
  • Protect said legal vendor from potential lawsuits leveled against them by persons who were harmed by a firearm purchased in their store by a convicted felon.
  • Prevent convicted felons (except the really stupid ones) from attempting to purchase weapons from legal vendors of such, as they know it would be impossible, due to said background check.
That said, a potential positive (a bit of a stretch, perhaps) would be that if there were not background checks allowed, cops could stake out gun shops and arrest a convicted felon who purchased a firearm there...

BGCs don't bother me much and yes they protect dealers (but makers still used to be sued by leftwing shysters until the Bush administration signed into law prevention of such BS) but here is an interesting fact about gun haters

The Clinton administration brayed that the Brady bill prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS (they never admitted that merely preventing someone from buying a gun at ABC Gun store didn't prevent the same guy from Buying one from Tyrone's midnight out of the trunk of his pontiac gun store), YET THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ONLY PROSECUTED 12 people for it

you see here is how it worked. You go to a gun store and the clerk hands you a Federal form . Now that form has changed several times but before the instant background you filled out a prelminary form that asked if you were a felon etc (the current form is a 4473 and they only require one form-15 years ago it was that and after you passed it then you would fill out the 4473)

after you filled the form out, the dealer would send it to the constabulary and they would check and if you passed you'd get the gun after a wait. Now, if you pass you get the gun right away

EITHER WAY if you FLUNK that means YOU LIED ON THE FORM BECAUSE IF YOU ADMIT YOU ARE A FELON, a FUGITIVE, an Illegal etc the clerk denies you a gun and doesn't even call it in

So if the Clintonistas were telling the truth that means they failed to prosecute over 99.9% of people who had PERJURED THEMSELVES
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

The Clinton administration brayed that the Brady bill prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS (they never admitted that merely preventing someone from buying a gun at ABC Gun store didn't prevent the same guy from Buying one from Tyrone's midnight out of the trunk of his pontiac gun store), YET THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ONLY PROSECUTED 12 people for it

Yes, but it prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.

That was the point of the law, to prevent ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Yes, but it prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.

That was the point of the law, to prevent ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.

you being stupid again? it prevented nothing.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

BGCs don't bother me much and yes they protect dealers (but makers still used to be sued by leftwing shysters until the Bush administration signed into law prevention of such BS) but here is an interesting fact about gun haters

The Clinton administration brayed that the Brady bill prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS (they never admitted that merely preventing someone from buying a gun at ABC Gun store didn't prevent the same guy from Buying one from Tyrone's midnight out of the trunk of his pontiac gun store), YET THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ONLY PROSECUTED 12 people for it

you see here is how it worked. You go to a gun store and the clerk hands you a Federal form . Now that form has changed several times but before the instant background you filled out a prelminary form that asked if you were a felon etc (the current form is a 4473 and they only require one form-15 years ago it was that and after you passed it then you would fill out the 4473)

after you filled the form out, the dealer would send it to the constabulary and they would check and if you passed you'd get the gun after a wait. Now, if you pass you get the gun right away

EITHER WAY if you FLUNK that means YOU LIED ON THE FORM BECAUSE IF YOU ADMIT YOU ARE A FELON, a FUGITIVE, an Illegal etc the clerk denies you a gun and doesn't even call it in

So if the Clintonistas were telling the truth that means they failed to prosecute over 99.9% of people who had PERJURED THEMSELVES
What the hell does this have to do with my hypothetical ideas?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

What the hell does this have to do with my hypothetical ideas?

reality sucks doesn't it

a background check that is not enforced when someone is caught trying to buy a gun illegally is a waste of time
 
Back
Top Bottom