• 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!

Should "ghost guns" be eliminated?

I’m not justifying anything. Just stating fact.
wrong-you're a big fan boy of trying to justify expansions of the government power over the negative restrictions placed on the government by the second and tenth amendment s
 
Because, like all rights, there are limits. Something you undoubtedly know, but are having trouble coming to grips with.
I keep wondering why you are so invested in stressing "limits" which is not the proper way to look at it anyway. Government has only the powers that it is legitimately given to it. Some power that the government has-is not exactly legitimate. De facto it has it-de jure perhaps not. Most of the federal gun control nonsense is based on fraud. Several of our gun controllers constantly claim that a gun control law is proper if it hasn't been struck down yet which is really poor form in terms of debating
 
That’s what you’re here for. 😁

Seriously though, the “governmental unit” in the case I referenced had/has the “proper power” to determine the limits of 2A. An obvious fact not necessitating clarification.
And they have:
“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "

Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).
 
I keep wondering why you are so invested in stressing "limits" which is not the proper way to look at it anyway. Government has only the powers that it is legitimately given to it. Some power that the government has-is not exactly legitimate. De facto it has it-de jure perhaps not. Most of the federal gun control nonsense is based on fraud. Several of our gun controllers constantly claim that a gun control law is proper if it hasn't been struck down yet which is really poor form in terms of debating
I’m not stressing limits. I’m acknowledging that they exist. You should try recognizing that reality.
 
And they have:
“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "

Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).
I have no heartburn at all with your references.

TD can’t say the same.
 
I’m not stressing limits. I’m acknowledging that they exist. You should try recognizing that reality.
this is a debate board-see if you can actually formulate a good argument why those limits are actually valid
 
this is a debate board-see if you can actually formulate a good argument why those limits are actually valid
Nothing anyone can say will put a scratch in your armor of denial.
 
Nothing anyone can say will put a scratch in your armor of denial.
are you unable to give a good argument for those laws other than saying they have yet to be stricken down?
 
I'm pretty sure that TD and I are aligned here.
roger that. Has RB given an argument (other than the court has not struck it down) for those laws?
 
I made no such claim.
Yes, you did. It is rather pointless to deny it on a forum where prior posts are recorded.

You, on the other hand.



Really??

^ This is one your stupidest attempts at recovery after posting yet another ignorant assertion.
It is obvious that you are completely clueless, not just about this subject but so many others. You go around making ridiculous assertions that the Second Amendment is some unlimited power, and then refuses to even acknowledge your ignorant and baseless assertion.
 
Yes, you did. It is rather pointless to deny it on a forum where prior posts are recorded.


It is obvious that you are completely clueless, not just about this subject but so many others. You go around making ridiculous assertions that the Second Amendment is some unlimited power, and then refuses to even acknowledge your ignorant and baseless assertion.
You’re either confused or lying. Either way, you’re wrong.
What part of “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” are you still not able to grasp?

No right is absolute, @Glitch.
BTW, the quoted portion of my post was taken, verbatim, from SCOTUS’ decision in Heller.
47CF5CF6-FF63-4694-B84C-47E037968E2B.gif
 
You’re either confused or lying. Either way, you’re wrong.

BTW, the quoted portion of my post was taken, verbatim, from SCOTUS’ decision in Heller.
View attachment 67386677
Verbatim but truncated.

Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, expressed a very limited view of what gun control laws could be considered Constitutional.

DC v Heller

"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."

Chicago v McDonald.

"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. "

The restrictions listed in these two opinions, all existing laws, are the only ones that can be presumed to be Constitutional. Nothing else can be presumed to be Constitutional.
 
I'm pretty sure that TD and I are aligned here.
You sure about that? From every post of TD’s I’ve read, he clearly comes from a virtually absolutist position against any curtailment whatsoever of 2A rights.

Do you think TD good with this provision in Heller?

“(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, 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. Pp. 47–54.
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.

I can recall, on several occasions, TD voicing his objection to any bans on firearms that are available for used by police.

Many police departments employ fully automatic weapons. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) contained a provision that banned the sale to civilians of machine gunsmanufactured after the date of enactment.

Do you think TD is cool with that?
 
Verbatim but truncated.

Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, expressed a very limited view of what gun control laws could be considered Constitutional.

DC v Heller

"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."

Chicago v McDonald.

"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. "

The restrictions listed in these two opinions, all existing laws, are the only ones that can be presumed to be Constitutional. Nothing else can be presumed to be Constitutional.
Completely irrelevant to the false claim made by @Glitch .

I never claimed that 2A rights are unlimited. Ever.
 
You sure about that? From every post of TD’s I’ve read, he clearly comes from a virtually absolutist position against any curtailment whatsoever of 2A rights.
This turns out not to be the case.
Do you think TD good with this provision in Heller?

“(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, 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. Pp. 47–54.
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.

I can recall, on several occasions, TD voicing his objection to any bans on firearms that are available for used by police.
I'm a firm believer that a citizen should have access to any weapon that the State is willing to use against the citizen.
Many police departments employ fully automatic weapons.

The question is why. When has there ever been a need for the police to engage civilians with machine guns?

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) contained a provision that banned the sale to civilians of machine gunsmanufactured after the date of enactment.

Do you think TD is cool with that?
No, and neither am I. NFA 1934 was patently unconstitutional, and Hughes Amendment was unequivocally a law passed, in dubious circumstances, to harass lawful gun owners.

We're both in agreement that given Scalia's opinion in Heller and Kavanaugh's opinion in Heller II that it's very unlikely that the NFA 1934 would be overturned by SCOTUS.
 
This turns out not to be the case.
Can you provide evidence that asserts otherwise?
I'm a firm believer that a citizen should have access to any weapon that the State is willing to use against the citizen.
While I respect your opinion, that wasn’t my point/question (Do you think TD good with this provision in Heller?).
The question is why. When has there ever been a need for the police to engage civilians with machine guns?
Fair question. I can’t think of any instances when full auto fire was a necessary option for police officers. Maybe to use in burst mode?
No, and neither am I. NFA 1934 was patently unconstitutional, and Hughes Amendment was unequivocally a law passed, in dubious circumstances, to harass lawful gun owners.

We're both in agreement that given Scalia's opinion in Heller and Kavanaugh's opinion in Heller II that it's very unlikely that the NFA 1934 would be overturned by SCOTUS.
Fair enough.
 
Can you provide evidence that asserts otherwise?
You could ask him.
While I respect your opinion, that wasn’t my point/question (Do you think TD good with this provision in Heller?).
What do you mean by "good with"? I believe that he and I recognize that the privisions in Heller would be found as Constitutional if examined again by the current Court. We both understand why Scalia wrotevwhat he did.
 
You could ask him.
You’re the one that said;
I'm pretty sure that TD and I are aligned here.
and this;
This turns out not to be the case.
Can you support your assertions, or not?
What do you mean by "good with"?
Commonly understood colloquialism for approves of or agrees with.
I believe that he and I recognize that the privisions in Heller would be found as Constitutional if examined again by the current Court. We both understand why Scalia wrotevwhat he did.
Agreeing that the provision would stand if reviewed by the current SCOTUS body, but not fully agreeing with the decision.
 
You’re the one that said;

and this;

Can you support your assertions, or not?
What kind of "proof" would satisfy you? A complete listing of all 2A concerns signed by both TD and I, properly notarized and sent to your home?

Why is it such a ****ing big deal for you? It literally means nothing. We differ stylistically but I haven't found any material position of the law or Constitution that he and I disagree on.

Given that, I can't show you proof of a negative condition.
Commonly understood colloquialism for approves of or agrees with.

Agreeing that the provision would stand if reviewed by the current SCOTUS body, but not fully agreeing with the decision.
What part of the decision do you disagree with and why?
 
I was going to say something along the line of how the hell old is that article. His article "post 237" makes no mention of a "ghost gun"

Studies done over a quarter century ago, are less than reliable.
 
Back
Top Bottom