• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

ernst barkmann said:
we have state governments which concern themselves with the life liberty and property of the people, ..when a person believes his rights to be violated by state or local, he takes his case to a state court, if he feels he has not received justice he can take it to a federal court, and even to the USSC court.

but it is not a power of congress to fix rights violations by legislation, but by federal court decisions.


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering what prevents abuse by those court officials.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

Article 2
1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.
Click to expand...

I agree but isn't abridgement a type of infringement?
 
gdgyva said:
sorry......

but if we are going to write a new constitution, and a new bill of rights.....

this is one of the areas where there will have to be some changes

i have zero issue with any citizen owning guns.....but lets make it reasonable, shall we

1. somehow, someway we need to make sure we can get guns away from people that have KNOWN psychological issues.....if you have been determined to suffer from schizophrenia, or a number of other illnesses, do we really want guns around you? yes....it will have to be debated, and some people will want more restrictions, and some others will want none.....maybe we can meet in the middle and maybe save a few lives

2. i dont want to tread on the militias, or some of the other groups....but is there a number of weapons that any one individual should own? not a deal breaker for me, but i think it should be up for discussion

3. i would love to eliminate automatic weapons.....i dont think it is possible, but it is on my wish list

i dont think there is any need for every gun to be registered.....i know that is a big thing....

again....dont want to take away your guns......but modifying the law slightly to keep them out of the hands of crazy people seems like a good idea to me
Click to expand...

In addition, while many may think this is another restriction, I would like to see some stipulation that those who buy/own a gun can also demonstrate how to handle a weapon safely.
While I may be able to buy a gun without restrictions, nobody ever asks me if I know how to handle it.
I realize that the vast majority of gun owners know how to load, maintain and carry a weapon, not everyone does. It may seem like another restriction to you, but for the safety of others, why not ask to produce some sort of safety course certificate? To me, that is part of responsible gun ownership.
Take a course, get a cert, renew every ? 5 years?
 
Lovebug said:
In addition, while many may think this is another restriction, I would like to see some stipulation that those who buy/own a gun can also demonstrate how to handle a weapon safely.
While I may be able to buy a gun without restrictions, nobody ever asks me if I know how to handle it.
I realize that the vast majority of gun owners know how to load, maintain and carry a weapon, not everyone does. It may seem like another restriction to you, but for the safety of others, why not ask to produce some sort of safety course certificate? To me, that is part of responsible gun ownership.
Take a course, get a cert, renew every ? 5 years?
Click to expand...

my dad taught at a range part time to earn a few bucks after retiring from the navy

he had a number of the gun shops in the area asking their customers that type of question

and if they were new to firearms, would send them out to the range

being taught how to clean, load, and shoot safely a weapon safely was really big to my dad

a few got there, pretended to know what they were doing, and almost caused a few major mishaps

i think certifying gun owners is a great idea.......not even every 5 years......i would be good every 15-20 years

once you learn the basics, it is fairly easy

i think we should be allowed to keep and maintain weapons.....i just think there has has to be reasonableness added especially regarding automatic weapons, and people who have known medical issues
 
Restricting firearms is a fools errand. If say a felon cannot legally own or buy a firearm and wants one, how else is he obtain one but illegally? Did no one learn that prohibition does not work? Look at illegal drugs, it isnt even hard to find drugs almost anywhere. Even if we outlawed all firearms there would still be thugs with firearms. Personally I own the equipment to make a firearm. There are thousands of gunsmiths all over the nation. And most of those machinists are avid proponents of gun rights. Even now gunsmiths secretly make fully automatic modifications to firearms.

Restricting liberties never works. Some people are naive or lie to themselves and believe that restricting objects and activities works, but it doesnt and never has. Such hedging of liberties only serve to undermine the Constitution.
 
Lovebug said:
In addition, while many may think this is another restriction, I would like to see some stipulation that those who buy/own a gun can also demonstrate how to handle a weapon safely.
While I may be able to buy a gun without restrictions, nobody ever asks me if I know how to handle it.
I realize that the vast majority of gun owners know how to load, maintain and carry a weapon, not everyone does. It may seem like another restriction to you, but for the safety of others, why not ask to produce some sort of safety course certificate? To me, that is part of responsible gun ownership.
Take a course, get a cert, renew every ? 5 years?
Click to expand...

What other rights do you believe should be conditional?
 
US Conservative said:
What other rights do you believe should be conditional?
Click to expand...

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. So freedom of speech is conditional.

In many states, ex-cons can't vote. And I don't think any state allows prisoners to vote. The right to vote is conditional.

Just two examples.
 
i understand the "you cant take our gun rights away" mentality

i own a few....and always plan to

but based on our country today, dont you think we need to rethink no limitations, and no checks on mental health?

do we really need schizophrenics running around with ar-15's?
 
gdgyva said:
i understand the "you cant take our gun rights away" mentality

i own a few....and always plan to

but based on our country today, dont you think we need to rethink no limitations, and no checks on mental health?

do we really need schizophrenics running around with ar-15's?
Click to expand...

Thats a false choice, Schizophrenics are incapable of distinguishing reality at times and as such aren't of sound mind.
 
paddymcdougall said:
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. So freedom of speech is conditional.

In many states, ex-cons can't vote. And I don't think any state allows prisoners to vote. The right to vote is conditional.

Just two examples.
Click to expand...

Ah so how about every 5 years, each citizen will have to apply for the right to free speech. The govt can pour over their texts, phone calls, emails, and message board posts the then decide if one is able to "have" this right?
 
US Conservative said:
Ah so how about every 5 years, each citizen will have to apply for the right to free speech. The govt can pour over their texts, phone calls, emails, and message board posts the then decide if one is able to "have" this right?
Click to expand...

I'm almost tempted to agree with you, given how many message boards have **** on them.

But you are drawing a false equivalence here.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats a false choice, Schizophrenics are incapable of distinguishing reality at times and as such aren't of sound mind.
Click to expand...

Exactly

They are not of sound mind

That needs to be something we make sure everyone who has guns has.....a sound mind

How? I dunno.....but we need to discuss the issue

Too many in our society with mental issues.....they don't NEED to own guns....at least imo

Like I said....I want to keep mine.....my relatives want to keep theirs.....but none of us are "crazy"

Can the issue at least be discussed?
 
gdgyva said:
Exactly

They are not of sound mind

That needs to be something we make sure everyone who has guns has.....a sound mind

How? I dunno.....but we need to discuss the issue

Too many in our society with mental issues.....they don't NEED to own guns....at least imo

Like I said....I want to keep mine.....my relatives want to keep theirs.....but none of us are "crazy"

Can the issue at least be discussed?
Click to expand...
The problem with placing restrictions on a right is that unless those restrictions are carefully defined, they could be used at some point to deny that right to those who did not fall under the restrictions.
For example if you said "of sound mind", who defines "of sound mind"? What if somewhere down the road someone defines it as "wanting to own a gun", thereby effectively eliminating the right? An extreme and probably unlikely example, I agree.

Or suppose we try to define what kind of weapons a person has a right to own. Who defines which weapons are allowed and which not?

For that matter, how do we determine who might take a weapon and decide to kill a bunch of people with it, due to mental issues? I am fairly sure that even among a group of people who show indications of an inclination to do so, they will not all lose it.

So do we simply remove the right from people based on a mental scan/exam of some sort? And how difficult is it to reclaim that right?

What do we do if someone HAS a mental issue, yet acquires a gun illegally....and does nothing wrong with it (apart from possession)?

For me to even think about accepting such a restriction would require that the mental test/exam/whatever be decently accurate in predicting such behavior, AND that reclaiming the right is free and fast, if one can demonstrate no dangerous mental issues.

Even then I dislike it.



Quite frankly I'm in a place where it looks better to have a few mentally deranged persons kill one or more other persons than to remove the right. That's ****ed up...
 
The Mark said:
The problem with placing restrictions on a right is that unless those restrictions are carefully defined, they could be used at some point to deny that right to those who did not fall under the restrictions.
For example if you said "of sound mind", who defines "of sound mind"? What if somewhere down the road someone defines it as "wanting to own a gun", thereby effectively eliminating the right? An extreme and probably unlikely example, I agree.

Or suppose we try to define what kind of weapons a person has a right to own. Who defines which weapons are allowed and which not?

For that matter, how do we determine who might take a weapon and decide to kill a bunch of people with it, due to mental issues? I am fairly sure that even among a group of people who show indications of an inclination to do so, they will not all lose it.

So do we simply remove the right from people based on a mental scan/exam of some sort? And how difficult is it to reclaim that right?
Click to expand...

The belief that we can somehow word a constitution in a manner that would make govt infringement of our rights impossible is an unrealistic exptaction. There's only so far we can go with that. The rest will have to be left to the political process, which I assume in this case will be a democratic one.

In the end, people get the govt they deserve because in a democracy, it's the govt they voted for.
 
gdgyva said:
Exactly

They are not of sound mind

That needs to be something we make sure everyone who has guns has.....a sound mind

How? I dunno.....but we need to discuss the issue

Too many in our society with mental issues.....they don't NEED to own guns....at least imo

Like I said....I want to keep mine.....my relatives want to keep theirs.....but none of us are "crazy"

Can the issue at least be discussed?
Click to expand...

Its already covered, Schizophrenics cant own guns, but subjecting free citizens to the legal burden of proving themselves no schizophrenic is not constitutional, imo.
 
The Mark said:
The problem with placing restrictions on a right is that unless those restrictions are carefully defined, they could be used at some point to deny that right to those who did not fall under the restrictions.
For example if you said "of sound mind", who defines "of sound mind"? What if somewhere down the road someone defines it as "wanting to own a gun", thereby effectively eliminating the right? An extreme and probably unlikely example, I agree.

Or suppose we try to define what kind of weapons a person has a right to own. Who defines which weapons are allowed and which not?

For that matter, how do we determine who might take a weapon and decide to kill a bunch of people with it, due to mental issues? I am fairly sure that even among a group of people who show indications of an inclination to do so, they will not all lose it.

So do we simply remove the right from people based on a mental scan/exam of some sort? And how difficult is it to reclaim that right?

What do we do if someone HAS a mental issue, yet acquires a gun illegally....and does nothing wrong with it (apart from possession)?

For me to even think about accepting such a restriction would require that the mental test/exam/whatever be decently accurate in predicting such behavior, AND that reclaiming the right is free and fast, if one can demonstrate no dangerous mental issues.

Even then I dislike it.



Quite frankly I'm in a place where it looks better to have a few mentally deranged persons kill one or more other persons than to remove the right. That's ****ed up...
Click to expand...

Its a pretext to control, thats all.
 
sangha said:
The belief that we can somehow word a constitution in a manner that would make govt infringement of our rights impossible is an unrealistic exptaction. There's only so far we can go with that. The rest will have to be left to the political process, which I assume in this case will be a democratic one.

In the end, people get the govt they deserve because in a democracy, it's the govt they voted for.
Click to expand...

The wolves vote themselves a sheep for dinner. Simply saying an idea is deserved because a majority of wolves want the sheep is idiotic and why a pure democracy is anything but free.
 
US Conservative said:
why a pure democracy is anything but free.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd agree with this; in a "pure" democracy, interracial marriages and same sex marriages would still be illegal in some or many states. And we'd have segregated schools.

Constitutional rights can't be overriden by a majority, no matter how many vote.

However, using a democracy to elect representatives seems to work for us, rather than having our representatives appointed by the governor of the state or something. Or only voted on by the state legislature.

Our country isn't a "pure" anything - it's a mix of republic, democracy, socialist, capitalist, libertarian, etc. That's why I don't like labeling policies as being one way or another, but instead asking if they work.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Well, I'd agree with this; in a "pure" democracy, interracial marriages and same sex marriages would still be illegal in some or many states. And we'd have segregated schools.

Constitutional rights can't be overriden by a majority, no matter how many vote.

However, using a democracy to elect representatives seems to work for us, rather than having our representatives appointed by the governor of the state or something. Or only voted on by the state legislature.

Our country isn't a "pure" anything - it's a mix of republic, democracy, socialist, capitalist, libertarian, etc. That's why I don't like labeling policies as being one way or another, but instead asking if they work.
Click to expand...

Our government isnt "socialist, capitalist, libertarian, etc." The US Constitution makes it clear that it is non of those things. Just because there are people with those ideologies in the government doesnt make the government those things. ANd just because some people have the bias that asserts that certain elements are those things doesnt mean that they are those things.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Well, I'd agree with this; in a "pure" democracy, interracial marriages and same sex marriages would still be illegal in some or many states. And we'd have segregated schools.

Constitutional rights can't be overriden by a majority, no matter how many vote.

However, using a democracy to elect representatives seems to work for us, rather than having our representatives appointed by the governor of the state or something. Or only voted on by the state legislature.

Our country isn't a "pure" anything - it's a mix of republic, democracy, socialist, capitalist, libertarian, etc. That's why I don't like labeling policies as being one way or another, but instead asking if they work.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's important to note that a "democratic political process" is not necessarily one based on "pure democracy"
 
sangha said:
The belief that we can somehow word a constitution in a manner that would make govt infringement of our rights impossible is an unrealistic exptaction. There's only so far we can go with that. The rest will have to be left to the political process, which I assume in this case will be a democratic one.

In the end, people get the govt they deserve because in a democracy, it's the govt they voted for.
Click to expand...

no its not, the founders stated that it the federal government [congress] cannot be involved in your personal life, then they cannot violate your rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom