• 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!

Background Checks

natman said:
Correction on #2. The adjacent state rule was once the case, but it was changed some years ago. Now you can buy a LONG gun via an FFL in any state, as long the transaction is legal in BOTH states. As stated, handguns must be bought in your home state.
Click to expand...
I looked, you are correct. Its been more than a decade since I bought a rifle in Kentucky
 
Chillfolks said:
Do you have a link supporting that, it's my understanding all sales using a FFL are supposed to have a check done. I find that claim highly suspect.
Click to expand...



Counter 1:48

In Georgia a CCW is known as a Weapons Carry License


When they stop voting for politicians looking to restrict their freedoms.
Click to expand...

In other words you don't know
And if "restricting their freedom" was as big an issue as you make out, wouldn't they have done it yet ?


The decriminalization and recreational use of marijuana in some states proves localities and federal government are not on the samw page concerning some laws.
Click to expand...

It's a big decision to legalize marijuana and not without opposition - much of it from your beloved GOP


Sure as long as you can legally own one.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that not everybody who can buy a gun, can buy a machine gun ?
If so that would contradict what you said above:

Anyone can purchace whatever guns are legal to own. No license needed.
Click to expand...

So which is it ?


It turns a right into a privilege until you understand that basic concept you'll never be abke to understand the error of your ways.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, because not every citizen has that right. By issuing a license to those that do, gun stores know the buy is OK to get a gun on showing it.
 
Rich2018 said:


Counter 1:48

In Georgia a CCW is known as a Weapons Carry License




In other words you don't know
And if "restricting their freedom" was as big an issue as you make out, wouldn't they have done it yet ?




It's a big decision to legalize marijuana and not without opposition - much of it from your beloved GOP




So are you saying that not everybody who can buy a gun, can buy a machine gun ?
If so that would contradict what you said above:



So which is it ?




No it doesn't, because not every citizen has that right. By issuing a license to those that do, gun stores know the buy is OK to get a gun on showing it.
Click to expand...

If you have a current CCW, that was acquired pursuant to a police background check, then some states do not require an additional BGC when you buy another firearm
 
Rich2018 said:
Absolutely. A UBC database needs to contain ANY information that might be detrimental to someone getting a gun.

IMO the federal government should issue federal gun licenses.
Click to expand...
what part of the constitution authorizes this?
 
Rich2018 said:


Counter 1:48

In Georgia a CCW is known as a Weapons Carry License
Click to expand...

That video saya you still need a background check. The CCW just makes it a quicker process because if you have a CCW chances are you will pass a BC with ease.
In other words you don't know
And if "restricting their freedom" was as big an issue as you make out, wouldn't they have done it yet ?
Click to expand...
I am not a mind reader I couldn't possibly give you a date when those residents will vote diffrent. They have to choose that you'll need to ask them.


It's a big decision to legalize marijuana and not without opposition - much of it from your beloved GOP
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with the feds and states not always being on the samw page concerning laws, no reason to think guns would be any different.


So are you saying that not everybody who can buy a gun, can buy a machine gun ?
If so that would contradict what you said above:

So which is it ?
Click to expand...
Everyone has the ability to purchase a full auto if they wish, but not everyone has the means to afford the process. Anyone can buy a Bentley, but nit everyone can afford one.

No it doesn't, because not every citizen has that right. By issuing a license to those that do, gun stores know the buy is OK to get a gun on showing it.
Click to expand...
Every citizen does have that right. Now those same citizens can do stupid stuff that results in punishments, but each citizen has the right to a firearm until they do something to restrict that. Again until you can grasp the simple concept of turning a right into a privlage you'll never see the error of your ways.
 
Chillfolks said:
That video saya you still need a background check. The CCW just makes it a quicker process because if you have a CCW chances are you will pass a BC with ease.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, watch it again

The gun store owner says you're in and out in minutes if you have a Weapons Carry License (ie: because they don't do the background checks)
Background checks are not done in Georgia if you have a Weapons Carry License

Try to stay honest


I am not a mind reader I couldn't possibly give you a date when those residents will vote diffrent.
Click to expand...

So a federally issued license, which doubled as a CCW, would be of some use then ?


That has nothing to do with the feds and states not always being on the samw page concerning laws, no reason to think guns would be any different.
Click to expand...

Hence the need for federal laws and not let each state do it's own thing


Everyone has the ability to purchase a full auto if they wish, but not everyone has the means to afford the process.
Click to expand...

So not everyone can buy a machine gun right? (which totally contradicts what you said)
So if you can, if you have paid for the permit etc and are authorized to buy a machine gun, a license could show that and there'd be no need to carry paper permits etc about with you


Every citizen does have that right....
Click to expand...

Minors, people declared mentally unfit, convicted felons...
Now a convicted felon might have lost his citizen rights but he'd still have a driver's license...so a gun federal license (or absence of one) would prevent him from buying a gun, without the need for a background check
 
Rogue Valley said:
I'm not a data expert. But I do know that doing nothing usually yields no tangible positive results.

As we used to say in the Corps..... Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance
Click to expand...

However "doing something" should be well thought out rather then political and emotional. Address the causes of the violence rather then an inanimate object.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you think the original intent is important ?
Click to expand...
The original intent is of paramount importance because without consideration of that intent the clause can be expanded to cover ANYTHING. Although unrelated to guns I can tell you about a client I had that was subjected to penalties under the NLRB even though they engaged in no interstate commerce whatsoever. They were a real estate appraisal company licensed only in Arizona and employed only Arizona residents. When an employee complained about some stupid stuff in the office her lawyer decided to get NLRB involved. The reason used for NLRB's involvement was that the appraiser did work for banks that were engaged in interstate commerce. Even though banks weren't his only client that was enough for the government, through the Commerce Clause, to get involved. That kind of thing is why original intent is so important.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes.....
Click to expand...

So, since the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the preservation of a militia...and since we don't need a militia anymore, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment as a relic of our past.

Yes ?
 
Lutherf said:
The original intent is of paramount importance because without consideration of that intent the clause can be expanded to cover ANYTHING. Although unrelated to guns I can tell you about a client I had that was subjected to penalties under the NLRB even though they engaged in no interstate commerce whatsoever. They were a real estate appraisal company licensed only in Arizona and employed only Arizona residents. When an employee complained about some stupid stuff in the office her lawyer decided to get NLRB involved. The reason used for NLRB's involvement was that the appraiser did work for banks that were engaged in interstate commerce. Even though banks weren't his only client that was enough for the government, through the Commerce Clause, to get involved. That kind of thing is why original intent is so important.
Click to expand...

So, since the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the preservation of a militia...and since we don't need a militia anymore, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment as a relic of our past.

Yes ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So, since the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the preservation of a militia...and since we don't need a militia anymore, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment as a relic of our past.

Yes ?
Click to expand...
your claim what the original intent is fails miserably.
 
Rich2018 said:
So, since the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the preservation of a militia...and since we don't need a militia anymore, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment as a relic of our past.

Yes ?
Click to expand...
The preservation of a militia was not the sole intent of the 2A. See DC v Heller for clarification.
 
Lutherf said:
The preservation of a militia was not the sole intent of the 2A. See DC v Heller for clarification.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but the justices who ruled on that case were not alive in 1791, so were just expressing opinion.

The 2nd Amendment is clear that the right to bear arms is linked to militia service.

Or do you this it makes just as much sense if it read: "Roses smell nice, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
 
Rich2018 said:
Excuse me, but the justices who ruled on that case were not alive in 1791, so were just expressing opinion.

The 2nd Amendment is clear that the right to bear arms is linked to militia service.

Or do you this it makes just as much sense if it read: "Roses smell nice, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
With all due respect, judges are tasked with expressing their opinions. That's pretty much the whole job description for a judge. I mean, we even call their opinions "opinions".
 
Lutherf said:
With all due respect, judges are tasked with expressing their opinions. That's pretty much the whole job description for a judge. I mean, we even call their opinions "opinions".
Click to expand...

No, they're tasked with expressing their interpretations.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, they're tasked with expressing their interpretations.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with that.

Granted, the main reason I can't argue with it is because it makes no sense whatsoever but I still can't argue with it.
 
Lutherf said:
I can't argue with that.

Granted, the main reason I can't argue with it is because it makes no sense whatsoever but I still can't argue with it.
Click to expand...

So you can't diferentiate between an opinion and an interpretation ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom