• 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

Not silly at all.
You're right -- it is -exceptionally- silly.

Asude from all the things that are wrong with them, what;s wrong with slavery? Rape? Murder? Terrorism?

And I'll take your lack of response regarding the issue of the failure to prosecute all those felons tha tried to by a gun asa concession of that point.

And here's another question - if a background check is prior restraint doesn't that make any furnishing of proof of legal qualification to do anything also prior restraint? Such as giving an ID to prove your age in order to buy a gun? Or to get a beer? Is that unconstitutional too?
No and no.

The government isnt restricting you because you might be committing a crime, it is verifying your identity. Requiring proof of identity is a -necessary- function regarding the right toi arms in that you have to prove you are who you say you are when you fill out the paperwork. It's no different than providing ID when you vote.

There's no constitutionally protected right to buy a beer.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You're right -- it is exceptionally silly.

Asude from all the things that are wrong with them, whats wrong with slavery? Rape? Murder? Terrorism?

I'm not sure you understand the question. Or else you're dodging it.

And I'll take your lack of rresponse rom the other post that you have conceded the issue regarding the failure to prosecute all those felons that tried to buy a gun.

No, you may not do that. You may take it as a lack of response, nothing more.

Fact is, I seem to have missed that post - which one?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

But losing their rights is part of the punishment. They lose their freedom (go to prison) for a few years, and they lose other rights for longer than that. So their punishment isn't over.

If you want to infinitely punish someone, life in prison without parole. Otherwise, all punishment must come with an expiration date.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Fine, if that's what society thinks is necessary and appropriate, though I wouldn't necessarily support that. This excludes, of course, 5th amendment or other criminal process rights. Those obviously can't be taken away.

Why? If the draconian thought process you endorse is allowed dominate; why can something like the 5th be observed? There's nothing in your big brother world that would say that it should be special in any way shape or form.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Are we just debating or does someone want to make a point?

Who wants ex-cons who maybe have killed someone, easy access to guns? They probably have lost other rights like being able to be a policeman or hold public office. Does anybody bitch about these infringments?
The point is that if it is SO important to keep ex-cons ftom buying guns - so important that the rights of the law abiding must be infringed to do it - then those that try do so should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That they are not illustrates a failure of the law thru a lack of enforcement.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

If you want to infinitely punish someone, life in prison without parole. Otherwise, all punishment must come with an expiration date.

Different terms for different kinds of punishment are common. You send someone to prison, but then keep them on parole, for instance.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Different terms for different kinds of punishment are common. You send someone to prison, but then keep them on parole, for instance.

And parole only lasts a few years at most. Done. Then the guy can go buy guns legally again.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I'm not sure you understand the question. Or else you're dodging it.
I'm not sure why you don't understand how inane the question is and how unnecessary it is to respond to.

No, you may not do that. You may take it as a lack of response, nothing more.
Until you respond, I certainly will.

Fact is, I seem to have missed that post - which one?
The one right before my response to your exceptionally silly question.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

The point is that if it is SO important to keep ex-cons ftom buying guns - so important that the rights of the law abiding must be infringed to do it - then those that try do so should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That they are not illustrates a failure of the law thru a lack of enforcement.

False choice fallacy.

We can choose that it is important enough to prevent them, but not important enough to prosecute everyone who tries. We can choose whatever we want. You're offering a false choice between two extremes.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I'm not sure why you don't understand how inane the question is and how unnecessary it is to respond to.

I'll take your lack of response as proof that you -- what was it you said? -- oh yes, you've "conceded the issue."

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

There should be almost no restrictions at all. A felon should never be allowed to own a gun after parole, for instance. That might be the conversation going on right now, but I did not read enough to find out. People with certain mental ailments should not be allowed to run around freely and harm others or to own guns. People should not be allowed to hurl hate speech or shout "look out" at somebody just as a bus is going by hoping to make them get clipped. Crap like that. Otherwise, the government should just stay the hell out of the way and let people live their lives.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

There should be almost no restrictions at all. A felon should never be allowed to own a gun after parole, for instance. That might be the conversation going on right now, but I did not read enough to find out. People with certain mental ailments should not be allowed to run around freely and harm others or to own guns. People should not be allowed to hurl hate speech or shout "look out" at somebody just as a bus is going by hoping to make them get clipped. Crap like that. Otherwise, the government should just stay the hell out of the way and let people live their lives.

Hard to live your life when someone shoots you dead.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

False choice fallacy
We can choose that it is important enough to prevent them, but not important enough to prosecute everyone who tries
Not while retaining any consistency in the argument, or without eliminating any vailidity to the idea that there is a compelling state interest involved.

If there is a compelling state interest in restricting the rights of others to prevent criminals from having guns, then said compelling interst necessitates that you procecute those that try. Else, there is no consequence to the felonious violation of the prohibition.

If there is no compelling state interest, then there is no argument that said restrction is constitutionally permissible.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Hard to live your life when someone shoots you dead.
How is this relevant to what he said?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Hard to live your life when someone shoots you dead.

uh, whatever. What the hell does that have to do with anything I said. Put that comment in context or else it will be viewed as trolling.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I'll take your lack of response as proof that you -- what was it you said? -- oh yes, you've "conceded the issue."

:doh
:roll:

There's no issue to concede.

If you take away all the things that are wrong with them, then there is, by necessity, nothing wrong with rape, murder, torture, slavery, terrorism, child pornography, incest, adultry, or the NICS.

What, excactly, do you think this is supposed to prove?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

:roll:

There's no issue to concede.

If you take away all the things that are wrong with them, then there is, by necessity, nothing wrong with rape, murder, torture, slavery, terrorism, child pornography, incest, adultry, or the NICS.

What, excactly, do you think this is supposed to prove?

Interesting debate, I will follow this point and join in when appropriate.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Not while retaining any consistency in the argument, or without eliminating any vailidity to the idea that there is a compelling state interest involved.

It's not inconsistent at all.

It's like posting a guard at a door and not letting anyone in who doesn't have an invitation. You don't have to arrest everyone who asks to get in but doesn't have one.

Do bouncers call the cops to arrest every kid who tries to use a fake ID?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

:roll:

There's no issue to concede.

If you take away all the things that are wrong with them, then there is, by necessity, nothing wrong with rape, murder, torture, slavery, terrorism, child pornography, incest, adultry, or the NICS.

What, excactly, do you think this is supposed to prove?

I will take your lack of answer as conceding the issue. Like you did with mine.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

How is this relevant to what he said?

He said "the government should just stay the hell out of the way and let people live their lives."
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

He said "the government should just stay the hell out of the way and let people live their lives."
And your rsponse was relevant, because...?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

And your rsponse was relevant, because...?

Because it's hard to live your life if someone is shooting you to death.

Do I really have to spell this one out for you?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

It's not inconsistent at all.
The failure to prosecute negates the argument of a compelling state interest.
Thus, inconsistent.

Perhaps you just dont understand what 'compllling state interest' means.

It's like posting a guard at a door and not letting anyone in who doesn't have an invitation. You don't have to arrest everyone who asks to get in but doesn't have one.
Nowhere near a valid comaprison, unless:
-There is a compelling state interest in not letting people in w/o an invite
-On that basis, everyone's rights are infringed
-Trying to get in w/o an invite is a felony

Noen of these things are true, so the comparison fails.

Its ACTUALLY like, as noted before, creating laws against drunk driving, specifiying mandatory penalties for those that do, infringing on the rights of every driver on the road, and then refusing to prosecute those that are caught.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Because it's hard to live your life if someone is shooting you to death.
So... its -not- relevant.
Thanks.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I will take your lack of answer as conceding the issue. Like you did with mine.

You clearly did not read the post, as the answer is there, direct and plain as day.
 
Back
Top Bottom