• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Universal BG Check Could Have Saved Lives

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, yet the proposed "bans" are dishonestly describing semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles" simply based on their (scary?) appearance.
Click to expand...

I agree. Those bans are stupid
 
daeler said:
Go look it up and you can read it. Not hard to find.
Click to expand...

Which you apparently cannot locate or you put it up here when repeatedly challenged to do so.
 
haymarket said:
Supreme Court decisions can be reversed and in time so will much of Heller. I base my position on the Constitution.

And even if we go by the so called "common use" language, a weapon used by less than 5% of Americans is certainly not in common use like handguns could be said to be.
Click to expand...

It is the concept of removing rights from the law abiding based on the abuse of those rights by criminals (also a tiny percentage of population) which I object to. The lawful keeping and carrying of arms is not causing "gun crime" - the criminal abuse of arms is, and will continue to be, a problem no matter how many (or what type of) guns are left available to the public.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is the concept of removing rights from the law abiding based on the abuse of those rights by criminals (also a tiny percentage of population) which I object to. The lawful keeping and carrying of arms is not causing "gun crime" - the criminal abuse of arms is, and will continue to be, a problem no matter how many (or what type of) guns are left available to the public.
Click to expand...

And if there is validity to your view, what does that have to do with creating an environment that most people in society want to live in?
 
haymarket said:
And if there is validity to your view, what does that have to do with creating an environment that most people in society want to live in?
Click to expand...

Where does this reduction in personal freedom by popular demand stop? If most prefer that folks drive tiny electric cars (to save the planet) is that cause to ban SUVs and/or pick-up trucks? What rifles, pistols or shotguns I choose own is none of your business - while what I choose do with my guns certainly is.
 
Beowulf said:
You conceded that AK-47s are arms.
Click to expand...

That is NOT a concession to you or any argument - it is a simple reality no matter who says it. And it is also a reality that they are NOT protected by the Second Amendment with protect the right to keep and bear arms and NOT any specific weapon or arm.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Where does this reduction in personal freedom by popular demand stop? If most prefer that folks drive tiny electric cars (to save the planet) is that cause to ban SUVs and/or pick-up trucks? What rifles, pistols or shotguns I choose own is none of your business - while what I choose do with my guns certainly is.
Click to expand...

In the case of the Second Amendment it would stop before the right can no longer be exercised.
 
haymarket said:
That is NOT a concession to you or any argument - it is a simple reality no matter who says it. And it is also a reality that they are NOT protected by the Second Amendment with protect the right to keep and bear arms and NOT any specific weapon or arm.
Click to expand...

Correct. The language, by not adding any qualifiers, simply means all arms.

An AK-47 is an arm.
 
haymarket said:
In the case of the Second Amendment it would stop before the right can no longer be exercised.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your honesty and consistency on the matter of advocating for decreasing the types and capabilities of guns legally available for civilian sale/ownership, it clearly violates the spirit of the 2A. Stating that "shall not be infringed" really meant may be federally restricted just shy of outlawing all civilian ownership of single-shot muskets is ridiculous.

That would be akin to saying that the freedom of speech may be limitted to speech delivered in person and/or by printed page media as it existed at the time our constituion was ratified. The advances in gun technologly, like the advances in communications technology, do not change the nature of preventing the government from abridging or denying the basic constitutional rights of the people.
 
Last edited:
Beowulf said:
Correct. The language, by not adding any qualifiers, simply means all arms.

An AK-47 is an arm.
Click to expand...

corrected your error many times already in many previous posts
 
ttwtt78640 said:
While I appreciate your honesty and consistency on the matter of advocating for decreasing the types and capabilities of guns legally available for civilian sale/ownership, it clearly violates the spirit of the 2A. Stating that "shall not be infringed" really meant may be federally restricted just shy of outlawing all civilian ownership of single-shot muskets is ridiculous.

That would be akin to saying that the freedom of speech may be limitted to speech delivered in person and/or by printed page media as it existed at the time our constituion was ratified. The advances in gun technologly, like the advances in communications technology, do not change the nature of preventing the government from abridging or denying the basic constitutional rights of the people.
Click to expand...

You will find no support from me in any of my posts for the single shot musket idea. So please do not make that the false premise of your assumptions.
 
haymarket said:
You will find no support from me in any of my posts for the single shot musket idea. So please do not make that the false premise of your assumptions.
Click to expand...

That is certainly allowable with your 2A interpretation of allowing reasonable restrictions so long as the right can still be exercised.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is certainly allowable with your 2A interpretation of allowing reasonable restrictions so long as the right can still be exercised.
Click to expand...

You believe no reasonable gun restrictions are constitutional?
 
vegas giants said:
You believe no reasonable gun restrictions are constitutional?
Click to expand...

Nope, but I believe we have plenty in place already and that guns bought/possessed legally should remain legal. The premise that if X is used (abused?) criminally then that is justification for an X ban is moronic. Far more handguns are used (abused?) criminally, so if that "logic" is accepted for a scary black rifle ban then it is a slam dunk to get a handgun ban using it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, but I believe we have plenty in place already and that guns bought/possessed legally should remain legal. The premise that if X is used (abused?) criminally then that is justification for an X ban is moronic. Far more handguns are used (abused?) criminally, so if that "logic" is accepted for a scary black rifle ban then it is a slam dunk to get a handgun ban using it.
Click to expand...

Tell ot to Beowulf. He believes there can be no gun restrictions
 
vegas giants said:
Tell ot to Beowulf. He believes there can be no gun restrictions
Click to expand...

There certainly should not be 50 (or more) differing definitions of what types of gun the people have a right to keep and bear. We have the NFA definitions in place and I see no cause to alter (extend or reduce) them. Guns do not cause "gun crime" any more than gasoline sold in "to go" containers causes arson.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There certainly should not be 50 (or more) differing definitions of what types of gun the people have a right to keep and bear. We have the NFA definitions in place and I see no cause to alter (extend or reduce) them. Guns do not cause "gun crime" any more than gasoline sold in "to go" containers causes arson.
Click to expand...

Why not reduce them.....if guns do not cause crimes
 
vegas giants said:
Why not reduce them.....if guns do not cause crimes
Click to expand...

The idea of granny having a .50 calibre machine gun to keep coyotes from attacking dear Fluffy is going a tad too far, IMHO. Of course, she is welcome to try get the appropriate BATFE license to do so, but not to simply bop into the local sporting goods store and buy one.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea of granny having a .50 calibre machine gun to keep coyotes from attacking dear Fluffy is going a tad too far, IMHO. Of course, she is welcome to try get the appropriate BATFE license to do so, but not to simply bop into the local sporting goods store and buy one.
Click to expand...

That does not address my point. If guns do not lead to crimes why not reduce those restrictions
 
vegas giants said:
Why not reduce them.....if guns do not cause crimes
Click to expand...
Because they help DETER crime far more often than they cause it. Google "defensive use of guns".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom