• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Gun control status poll

Where do you stand on gun legislation restricting firearm ownership?

  • Status Quo - Could use some tweaking but it's generally fine

  • More firearm restrictions needed

  • Less firearm restrictions needed

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.

Luther

Another California Refugee
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
16,406
Reaction score
1,731
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would do away with almost all gun control, keeping only the need to be 18, to have liability insurance, and a few gun-free zones like prisons. Everything else belongs in the trash bin imo.

to have liability insurance,

Look what you tried to sneak in(LOL)
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,560
Reaction score
37,785
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I voted other. I’m a gun owner. I’m a high level competition shooter. I also hunt some. I think there are way, way to many guns in hands. I spend a lot of time around other shooters. It is frightening. People at the range waving LOADED guns in all directions. Plenty of bullet holes in the sheet metal roof. Owning a gun doesn’t mean you have any qualifications. Zero training. We don’t let people drive without training! Also, I think assault rifles are for the military. And I don’t see the need for anything semi auto. INCLUDING pistols. If I can’t get the deer in three shots the deer win. If you need a gun for home defense get a short barreled pump shotgun. Odds are you’ll die in a wreck driving to work though. I think there should be way more regulation. License, registration, insurance, training, a tax to support that training. Giving the government the bird and saying I won’t negotiate reasonable laws means they’ll just make laws without your input.
Your comparison of individual constitutional rights to mere state issued privileges (bolded above) is problematic. Limiting the 2A to “home defense” (only if insured and licensed?) goes even further.

Why not limit driving to one’s personal property as well? If you need to travel further then use government supplied transportation systems. The BoR exists precisely to prevent the government from making laws “without your input” to abridge or deny your basic constitutional rights.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
23,970
Reaction score
12,076
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Your comparison of individual constitutional rights to mere state issued privileges (bolded above) is problematic. Limiting the 2A to “home defense” (only if insured and licensed?) goes even further.

Why not limit driving to one’s personal property as well? If you need to travel further then use government supplied transportation systems. The BoR exists precisely to prevent the government from making laws “without your input” to abridge or deny your basic constitutional rights.
I don't believe much of what he's typed here at all.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,509
Reaction score
26,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yep, and that's why you've got "no gun control" - almost to the point where any deranged, mentally sub-normal, person who can come up with the purchase price can buy guns.
We should not be violating the rights of ALL Americans to protect against a few "deranged, mentally sub-normal" people. We should find ways to deal with those people.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
23,970
Reaction score
12,076
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I voted other. I’m a gun owner. I’m a high level competition shooter. I also hunt some. I think there are way, way to many guns in hands. I spend a lot of time around other shooters. It is frightening. People at the range waving LOADED guns in all directions. Plenty of bullet holes in the sheet metal roof. Owning a gun doesn’t mean you have any qualifications. Zero training. We don’t let people drive without training! Also, I think assault rifles are for the military. And I don’t see the need for anything semi auto. INCLUDING pistols. If I can’t get the deer in three shots the deer win. If you need a gun for home defense get a short barreled pump shotgun. Odds are you’ll die in a wreck driving to work though. I think there should be way more regulation. License, registration, insurance, training, a tax to support that training. Giving the government the bird and saying I won’t negotiate reasonable laws means they’ll just make laws without your input.
LOL.........right :rolleyes:
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,509
Reaction score
26,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
At nine years old children’s brains are not fully formed. They are not neurologically able to be as competent as an adult in anything.
Bullshit.

Here's a nine year old girl who is MORE competent at singing than a LOT of adults.


As my son, the musician, says about this girl...it's all about training.

And, to circle back to the topic at hand, with the training they received from me regarding firearms they WERE just as competent as I am. We spent many hours at the range with them proving their competency.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,560
Reaction score
37,785
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I posted less restrictions needed because IMO, some states are overly restrictive.
The concept of one’s individual constitutional rights varying (or disappearing?) by state, county or city law is extremely problematic (unconstitutional?). Remember that these “gotcha” laws apply to anyone traveling through these constitutional rights limitation zones, most often with no notice posted.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,560
Reaction score
37,785
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't believe much of what he's typed here at all.
I believe that he thinks government should have way more power and that special folks (like himself?) should have far more state issued privileges (if they can afford to rent them) than others.
 

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
11,426
Reaction score
6,219
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Gun control or criminal control?

Have nation wide a Project Exile program.
A partnership between the state and federal government.
If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime it's an automatic 30 years plus the time for the actual crime.
The other part of this is you are sent to an out of state federal prison. No parole, no early out for good time.
You do the actual time. You would see gun crime plummet. Today gun criminals are routinely released over
and over to commit multiple gun crimes The revolving door has to stop!
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,960
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. .

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment .

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.


 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,560
Reaction score
37,785
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. .

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment .

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[snipped to allow reply]


The “in common use at the time” BS seems to exclude in common use by currently serving militia, military and/or law enforcement personnel as supplied and/or issued to them. Instead that has been taken to mean whatever the (federal, state or local) government has decided you, as mere civilians, are permitted to possess “at this time”.
 

brianpatrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
272
Bullshit.

Here's a nine year old girl who is MORE competent at singing than a LOT of adults.


As my son, the musician, says about this girl...it's all about training.

And, to circle back to the topic at hand, with the training they received from me regarding firearms they WERE just as competent as I am. We spent many hours at the range with them proving their competency.
I am also a musician, and spent almost ten years making a living playing music. I don’t know what your son does, but he’s mistaken about it being all about training. It’s mostly about innate ability. This is true of almost all things. My point was not about their training and whether they were taught to handle a gun in a controlled environment, it was that a nine year old brain is almost never capable of adult reasoning when the situation requires it.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,560
Reaction score
37,785
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Bullshit.

Here's a nine year old girl who is MORE competent at singing than a LOT of adults.


As my son, the musician, says about this girl...it's all about training.

And, to circle back to the topic at hand, with the training they received from me regarding firearms they WERE just as competent as I am. We spent many hours at the range with them proving their competency.
Competency under controlled conditions with constant adult supervision is not the same as competency outside of that situation. That is why 9 year olds are not tried in adult criminal courts or placed in adult jails/prisons upon conviction.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,509
Reaction score
7,943
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Reversing the ban on full auto isn't a small tweak.



That's just unfeasible. Should violent convicted felons have gun rights? Should there be no restrictions whatsoever? If I can build a nuke it's OK?
Yes. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
 

brianpatrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
272
Yes. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
The part that was interpreted as you apparently see it in 2008, while being left open by the Supreme Court for later interpretation if the court (first the people) see fit to do so?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,751
Reaction score
75,507
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If I have that coming to get me, I've made some poor life choices.
I recall several cases of people being attacked mistakenly. A girl and her brother I knew well (she just died of cancer at 57) were orphaned when their parents were murdered by a drug gang in the early 70s. the DA stated that the victims-living in a very wealthy neighborhood, -were located next to the home of a guy who was a big coke head and when he wouldn't pay, the dealer's goons went to kill him but got the wrong house
 

brianpatrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
272
I recall several cases of people being attacked mistakenly. A girl and her brother I knew well (she just died of cancer at 57) were orphaned when their parents were murdered by a drug gang in the early 70s. the DA stated that the victims-living in a very wealthy neighborhood, -were located next to the home of a guy who was a big coke head and when he wouldn't pay, the dealer's goons went to kill him but got the wrong house
that’s a fine example, and it happens. All kinds of crazy stuff happens in this world. But isn’t this kind of the same thing as saying we shouldn’t restrict gun rights because a few idiots shoot up a school somewhere? Both are rare, and both do happen. I don’t and have never thought either was a good argument.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,751
Reaction score
75,507
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
that’s a fine example, and it happens. All kinds of crazy stuff happens in this world. But isn’t this kind of the same thing as saying we shouldn’t restrict gun rights because a few idiots shoot up a school somewhere? Both are rare, and both do happen. I don’t and have never thought either was a good argument.
There is no reason to disarm honest people based on the dishonest BELIEF that doing so will disarm criminals. And honest people have a constitutional right to be armed.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,509
Reaction score
7,943
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The part that was interpreted as you apparently see it in 2008, while being left open by the Supreme Court for later interpretation if the court (first the people) see fit to do so?
The supreme court is filled with illiterate boobs, who have taken it upon themselves to write law.
 

brianpatrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
272
The supreme court is filled with illiterate boobs, who have taken it upon themselves to write law.
Sure, but this is hyperbole. It’s not part of a real discussion or any kind of honest response. And even if it were true the SC, (illiterate or not) still has the power to hear cases wrt 2A, or anything else they decide to take up. Responses like this just make smart people think you are some kind of idiot that can’t be taken seriously.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,509
Reaction score
7,943
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Sure, but this is hyperbole. It’s not part of a real discussion or any kind of honest response. And even if it were true the SC, (illiterate or not) still has the power to hear cases wrt 2A, or anything else they decide to take up. Responses like this just make smart people think you are some kind of idiot that can’t be taken seriously.
The second amendment, as well as the others, are written in clear english that any 3 grader can read and understand. Its says RTKBA shall not be infringed. Period. There are no exceptions. That's not hyperbole thats the bare facts. Any judge who says otherwise is an illiterate boob at best. People keep saying there are exceptions to the constitution when there are clearly not. This includes the first amendment and all the others as well. Yet we have idiots in our country who insist otherwise. There is a reason I call them illiterate boobs. The first law that should always be respected without fail is the Constitution all other laws are secondary and applicable only when they dont fail the test of the Constitution. The only people who look for angles to get around the constitution are the government loving sycophants who dont give a **** about our enumerated or other rights.
 

brianpatrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
272
The second amendment, as well as the others, are written in clear english that any 3 grader can read and understand. Its says RTKBA shall not be infringed. Period. There are no exceptions. That's not hyperbole thats the bare facts. Any judge who says otherwise is an illiterate boob at best. People keep saying there are exceptions to the constitution when there are clearly not. This includes the first amendment and all the others as well. Yet we have idiots in our country who insist otherwise. There is a reason I call them illiterate boobs. The first law that should always be respected without fail is the Constitution all other laws are secondary and applicable only when they dont fail the test of the Constitution. The only people who look for angles to get around the constitution are the government loving sycophants who dont give a **** about our enumerated or other rights.
There are people who can’t read. They are called illiterate. Obviously the SC justices are not illiterate. So that’s hyperbole. Then their are others (like you seemingly) who can obviously read, but assume that the way they interpret something must be the only interpretation. The sentence to me is conditional. The right shall not be infringed for a militia to keep and bear arms. I’m very familiar with the argument that we’re all in the militia, but that’s not really a good argument in this age of a highly advanced standing military, and National Guard—not to mention modern policing. We pay people to defend us. We put our trust in them, and when they violate that trust we prosecute them in accordance with our laws.
My advice to gun control opponents is to help their own side to stop making ridiculous arguments and declaratory, full stop, arguments that give very smart people in the opposition an easy excuse to dismiss them. Assuming you’re smarter than people you are obviously not smarter than, is a losing argument, and you WILL lose your rights if it persists.

In my opinion, the best argument I’ve heard around the gun control debate surrounds “states rights.” Essentially there, you can say: “**** you, we won’t do it. Other states may choose to but that is irrelevant to us. Otherwise, the sentence in the constitution is a poorly worded one. It may have been intentionally vague—law makers sometimes do that, but as it stands it is open to interpretation. The founders could have easily made it clearer. They were all very good writers.
 
Top Bottom