• 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!

Why Not Registration and Permits?

NWRatCon said:
Evidently your best is not very good. Early American law distinguished between "arms" which could be "borne" by an individual, and "armaments", which is what, today, we would call "crew served weapons". Armaments were stored in militia-controlled armories. You remember Concord and Lexington? Yeah. That was about this.
Click to expand...

Alright than today we could say that the 2A does not apply to nuclear bombs since those would be "armaments" but it would apply to all types of small arms. So therefore under the 2A a citizen should be allowed to own any type of small arm.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Alright than today we could say that the 2A does not apply to nuclear bombs since those would be "armaments" but it would apply to all types of small arms. So therefore under the 2A a citizen should be allowed to own any type of small arm.
Click to expand...

Yes, with regard to nuclear weapons, and "maybe" with regard to small arms. That would literally be up to the State to decide under the militia clause. At least if the Supreme Court actually cared about the history and intent of the Constitution. (But we know that doesn't always matter any more to the majority.)

But there's another factor to consider that is usually ignored. All of the rights enumerated (and unenumerated) in the Constitution have limitations. None are absolute. It's all a matter of balance. The rights expressed are principles of construction. They are given great weight against other considerations. So, for example, one is free to "petition the government for redress of grievances", but it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit carrying firearms into the Capitol building while doing so. One can "bear" a firearm, but be arrested for brandishing it. One can practice their religion freely, but human sacrifice can be prohibited.

Courts weigh these issues all the time to determine the reasonableness of regulation, especially when one fundamental interest conflicts with another. States are charged with the general police power in the Constitution, the most significant of this being public safety. So the authority of the State would allow it to put limitations on carriage, use and even possession of firearms in the interest of public safety, so long as such limitations are reasonable and serve a legitimate public interest. Thus storage laws, registration, permits and limitations on magazine sizes and other regulations can be justified on public safety grounds even if they infringe, in some way, on a fundamental constitutional right. The key is reasonableness.
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
That's typical of Rich2018 blurring the lines between fact fiction and opinion to support whatever he wants while ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

I suppose, though, that blurring is better than ignoring altogether...
 
Last edited:
RF667799 said:
Concealed carry is allowed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Click to expand...
That, right there, is an acknowledgement of the authority of the State to regulate. Now we're just talking degrees.
 
Lutherf said:
This is why -

Sutter County Sheriff Alerts CCW Permit Holders About Public Records Request From SF Newspaper – CBS Sacramento



The SF Chron editor is concerned that his people will be in danger due to the sheriff making a public notice to permit holders of the pending release.

He's worried about his people...how nice.

How about being one of the people that were subjects of his request? How about being worried for them?
Click to expand...

This should not be an issue. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...
 
RF667799 said:
You responded to his argument with a statement as if it was fact. You weren't aware if the statement was true or not when you made it. That's intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Up until 2013 it was true*, or didn't you know that? Being mistaken is not the same thing as intellectual dishonesty. How's that petard hanging?

*"Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation." Pro-con
 
NWRatCon said:
Yes, with regard to nuclear weapons, and "maybe" with regard to small arms. That would literally be up to the State to decide under the militia clause. At least if the Supreme Court actually cared about the history and intent of the Constitution. (But we know that doesn't always matter any more to the majority.)

But there's another factor to consider that is usually ignored. All of the rights enumerated (and unenumerated) in the Constitution have limitations. None are absolute. It's all a matter of balance. The rights expressed are principles of construction. They are given great weight against other considerations. So, for example, one is free to "petition the government for redress of grievances", but it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit carrying firearms into the Capitol building while doing so. One can "bear" a firearm, but be arrested for brandishing it. One can practice their religion freely, but human sacrifice can be prohibited.

Courts weigh these issues all the time to determine the reasonableness of regulation, especially when one fundamental interest conflicts with another. States are charged with the general police power in the Constitution, the most significant of this being public safety. So the authority of the State would allow it to put limitations on carriage, use and even possession of firearms in the interest of public safety, so long as such limitations are reasonable and serve a legitimate public interest. Thus storage laws, registration, permits and limitations on magazine sizes and other regulations can be justified on public safety grounds even if they infringe, in some way, on a fundamental constitutional right. The key is reasonableness.
Click to expand...

at a federal level, where does support for that proposition come from
 
Rich2018 said:
Doesn't that mess up the rifling ?
Click to expand...
Gun barrels can be swapped out very easily they are actually available by mail also firing pins can be swapped very easily
 
TurtleDude said:
non responsive bot speak
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
danielpalos said:
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

not responsive bot speak.
 
danielpalos said:
there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. that really is non responsive. you won't get away with that in open Court for very long.
Click to expand...

not responsive bot speak: you almost never actually respond to the quotes you reference
 
danielpalos said:
anyone can type on the Internet, usually.

I have valid rebuttals not just fallacy of one type or another.

Go ahead and rephrase your alleged question.
Click to expand...

Another poster claimed that all of the rights recognized in the Bill of rights, have limitations

I asked him, where does such authority exist, at the federal level-to prove the existence of such limitations
 
NWRatCon said:
Yes, with regard to nuclear weapons, and "maybe" with regard to small arms. That would literally be up to the State to decide under the militia clause. At least if the Supreme Court actually cared about the history and intent of the Constitution. (But we know that doesn't always matter any more to the majority.)

But there's another factor to consider that is usually ignored. All of the rights enumerated (and unenumerated) in the Constitution have limitations. None are absolute. It's all a matter of balance. The rights expressed are principles of construction. They are given great weight against other considerations. So, for example, one is free to "petition the government for redress of grievances", but it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit carrying firearms into the Capitol building while doing so. One can "bear" a firearm, but be arrested for brandishing it. One can practice their religion freely, but human sacrifice can be prohibited.

Courts weigh these issues all the time to determine the reasonableness of regulation, especially when one fundamental interest conflicts with another. States are charged with the general police power in the Constitution, the most significant of this being public safety. So the authority of the State would allow it to put limitations on carriage, use and even possession of firearms in the interest of public safety, so long as such limitations are reasonable and serve a legitimate public interest. Thus storage laws, registration, permits and limitations on magazine sizes and other regulations can be justified on public safety grounds even if they infringe, in some way, on a fundamental constitutional right. The key is reasonableness.
Click to expand...
What you say makes sense however its important to understand what the purpose of the BOR was and is. The purpose BOR which is the first 10 articles in the Constitution is not to grant rights to the people but rather to place restrictions on the government. Basically what the BOR says is that the government cannot prohibit the people from doing anything mentioned in the BOR and if the government were to do so it would be crossing the line and overstepping its authority. So instead of calling it the Bill Of Rights I would say it would be more accurate to call it the Bill Of Restrictions, restrictions on the government.
 
DebateChallenge said:
What you say makes sense however its important to understand what the purpose of the BOR was and is. The purpose BOR which is the first 10 articles in the Constitution is not to grant rights to the people but rather to place restrictions on the government. Basically what the BOR says is that the government cannot prohibit the people from doing anything mentioned in the BOR and if the government were to do so it would be crossing the line and overstepping its authority. So instead of calling it the Bill Of Rights I would say it would be more accurate to call it the Bill Of Restrictions, restrictions on the government.
Click to expand...

It is called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Do propose that you know more about the language of the Constitution than those who wrote it?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Gun barrels can be swapped out very easily they are actually available by mail also firing pins can be swapped very easily
Click to expand...

That would dilute the benefits of digitally recording a gun's finger print - still worth doing though.
 
Rich2018 said:
That would dilute the benefits of digitally recording a gun's finger print - still worth doing though.
Click to expand...

No, mandating smart guns including a digital recording of the gun's finger print is just another way for the government to control guns which it does too much of already.
 
DebateChallenge said:
No, mandating smart guns including a digital recording of the gun's finger print is just another way for the government to control guns which it does too much of already.
Click to expand...

How does a government control guns by registering them ?

Does a government control cars ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom