The Burden of Proof in Gun Control Issues

[TurtleDude]

In a free society, the burden should always be on those who wish to limit freedom. Thus when some control freak starts arguing for "registration" or "Magazine Capacity limits" and then claims we don't meet our burden when we cannot demonstrate (to their satisfaction which of course is an unreachable goal) that

1) every case of registration has led to confiscation

2) or that magazine limits will always lead to further limits


we should reject their parameters for the dishonest BS it is

No we don't have a duty to prove anything

rather the freedom suckers have the burden of proving that

1) any law they wish to impose has to meet these tests

a) constitutionally sound (that kills most of them)

b) will actually apply mainly to criminals not honest people

c) has no chance of being used to disarm the law abiding

d) actually has an evidentiary foundation that said laws have decreased crime when enacted

2) right now none of the crap the democratic party proposes meets any of those tests

so those who are water carriers for feinswine and Schummer define the debate with the premise that registration or other requirements imposed only on legal gun owners is a good and we should have to prove that such schemes always lead to confiscation

that is nonsense

registration in itself is evil and has no usefulness

 

[haymarket]

The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.

But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself

http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Burden_of_proof

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.

 

[TurtleDude]

The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.

But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself

Burden of proof - Debatepedia



For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.

My statements are as such

1) registration is harassment to me and those who want it have failed to establish what benefit I get from it

2) almost every scum bag who is anti gun is pro registration

3) registration facilitates confiscation

4) under Supreme Court authority (based on 5th amendment) felons and others banned from owning guns cannot be forced to register guns

and yes, confiscations have followed some registrations

you pretend that a viable way to support registration is to argue that we don't prove enough cases of registration leading to confiscation

we don't have to

one case of confiscation is enough evidence to oppose registration

 

[haymarket]

My statements are as such

1) registration is harassment to me and those who want it have failed to establish what benefit I get from it

and to me that is not worth a common five pound bag of garden manure.

The Constitution lists THE RIGHT TO VOTE in five different places. I have to register to use it. Tell this to somebody who will shed tears with you before the same altar.

 

[TurtleDude]

and to me that is not worth a common five pound bag of garden manure.

The Constitution lists THE RIGHT TO VOTE in five different places. I have to register to use it. Tell this to somebody who will shed tears with you before the same altar.

what in God's name does that have to do with anything

apples to cinderblocks again?

no one has ever used registering to vote to deprive people of that right (which is not a constitutional right per se)

Your moronic analogy is what you would call a false equivalency or whatever your Jr High debate protocol book calls it

 

[YoungConserv]

The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.

But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself

Burden of proof - Debatepedia



For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.

Actually under our legal system in any case where the rights of the people are being infringed the burden of proof for its necessity and that this is the gentlest way to achive the desired goal is left to the state to prove.

 

[haymarket]

what in God's name does that have to do with anything

apples to cinderblocks again?

no one has ever used registering to vote to deprive people of that right (which is not a constitutional right per se)

Your moronic analogy is what you would call a false equivalency or whatever your Jr High debate protocol book calls it

If you want MORONIC - read your own post. Nobody is trying to deprive you of your rights to bear arms.

And by your own admission, you would not recognize a debate manual if it introduced itself to you.

 

[haymarket]

Actually under our legal system in any case where the rights of the people are being infringed the burden of proof for its necessity and that this is the gentlest way to achive the desired goal is left to the state to prove.

Nobody is infringing upon your rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

If you want MORONIC - read your own post. Nobody is trying to deprive you of your rights to bear arms.

And by your own admission, you would not recognize a debate manual if it introduced itself to you.

when you say NOBODY you LOSE if I can find just ONE person

Your idol DIane Fienstein admitted that she really wanted to CONFISCATE every semi auto in America

Of course if she had tried that I suspect she would no longer be in office

but you claim that my rights remain intact even if the dems were to ban all future gun sales

you see-its you trying to gain control by defining what a violation of our rights would be in a way that anything your scummy leaders propose is not a "violation"

I DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS and

registration

getting permission to sell a gun to another person in my state

limitations to how many guns I can own or buy at a given time

how many bullets are in my guns magazine

ARE ALL VIOLATIONS of my rights

 

[TurtleDude]

Nobody is infringing upon your rights.

BS

you pretend "infringing" doesn't even exist rather INFRINGEMENT is only possible when the government completely bans all guns

sorry, we don't buy that crap. having to have a license to carry a pistol is an INFRINGEMENT on the Right to KEEP AND BEAR arms

 

[LaMidRighter]

In a free society, the burden should always be on those who wish to limit freedom. Thus when some control freak starts arguing for "registration" or "Magazine Capacity limits" and then claims we don't meet our burden when we cannot demonstrate (to their satisfaction which of course is an unreachable goal) that

1) every case of registration has led to confiscation

2) or that magazine limits will always lead to further limits


we should reject their parameters for the dishonest BS it is

No we don't have a duty to prove anything

rather the freedom suckers have the burden of proving that

1) any law they wish to impose has to meet these tests

a) constitutionally sound (that kills most of them)

b) will actually apply mainly to criminals not honest people

c) has no chance of being used to disarm the law abiding

d) actually has an evidentiary foundation that said laws have decreased crime when enacted

2) right now none of the crap the democratic party proposes meets any of those tests

so those who are water carriers for feinswine and Schummer define the debate with the premise that registration or other requirements imposed only on legal gun owners is a good and we should have to prove that such schemes always lead to confiscation

that is nonsense

registration in itself is evil and has no usefulness

Honestly, if they would just focus on due process they would get most those types of laws asked for. I don't think anyone would argue that a person convicted of a crime loses "some" rights. This of course should always have a restoration process but we already have that, all we need to do is tweak it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Honestly, if they would just focus on due process they would get most those types of laws asked for. I don't think anyone would argue that a person convicted of a crime loses "some" rights. This of course should always have a restoration process but we already have that, all we need to do is tweak it.

because their goal is to punish people for opposing their socialist agenda

 

[LaMidRighter]

because their goal is to punish people for opposing their socialist agenda

I think some of them fall under that. I also think there are some groups out there that truly don't know the first thing about firearms and just go on assumptions. If they would cooperate and ask for criminal control versus trying prior restraint tactics they would find help from our side.

 

[BretJ]

The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.

But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself

Burden of proof - Debatepedia



For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.

Then fer crying out loud, the majority of all gun control arguments could not be held to that standard and when discussing your standards, I have to define standards as specious. He is correct in stating that when a government is discussing further limitations on it's citizens freedoms, the burden of proof is on the government. Is that incorrect??

If I were to ask you for compelling evidence that registration could not empower future confiscation efforts, you absolutely could not do so with any valid logic. I can state, based upon absolute logical inference, that it very well could. Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you, the burden of proof that it will not is on those that propose gun registration.

You are in essence arguing from ignorance. While you may very well claim I am as well, one of us is wrong. If I am wrong and registration does not lead to confiscation in our country, then you are not harmed. If you are wrong, I am harmed. The physicians maxim seems to be an appropriate standard in this case. "First, do no harm".

 

[YoungConserv]

Nobody is infringing upon your rights.

A 200 dollar tax to own and a forfeit of my 4th amendment rights in order to own a machine gun seems like infringement. If you tried to do that with voting you would get a mob so id say there might be infringement there.

 

[haymarket]

Actually under our legal system in any case where the rights of the people are being infringed the burden of proof for its necessity and that this is the gentlest way to achive the desired goal is left to the state to prove.

Nobody is denying you any right.

 

[haymarket]

when you say NOBODY you LOSE if I can find just ONE person

I am the person you are debating here. My statement was clearly meant to those in this debate right here. Not anybody in Washington DC who does not have the power to do anything anyway.

You are debating me so it is MY VIEWS that you can criticize. I am NOT responsible for any of your demonic enemies or what they may believe.

But nice attempt to move the goal posts to a different field altogether and invoke your political enemies at the same time. :doh:shock:

 

[haymarket]

BS

you pretend "infringing" doesn't even exist rather INFRINGEMENT is only possible when the government completely bans all guns

sorry, we don't buy that crap. having to have a license to carry a pistol is an INFRINGEMENT on the Right to KEEP AND BEAR arms

I could not care less what you buy or what you do not buy. It has no relevance on what the Constitution says.

 

[haymarket]

Then fer crying out loud, the majority of all gun control arguments could not be held to that standard and when discussing your standards, I have to define standards as specious. He is correct in stating that when a government is discussing further limitations on it's citizens freedoms, the burden of proof is on the government. Is that incorrect??

If I were to ask you for compelling evidence that registration could not empower future confiscation efforts, you absolutely could not do so with any valid logic. I can state, based upon absolute logical inference, that it very well could. Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you, the burden of proof that it will not is on those that propose gun registration.

You are in essence arguing from ignorance. While you may very well claim I am as well, one of us is wrong. If I am wrong and registration does not lead to confiscation in our country, then you are not harmed. If you are wrong, I am harmed. The physicians maxim seems to be an appropriate standard in this case. "First, do no harm".

I believe I have made my position clear. If the right wants to push the meme that we must stop registration efforts because the nightmare scenario of confiscation is the real monster under that Halloween disguise of registration, then we need to see all the facts about such efforts that people are using to make the rest of the nation accept and believe this allegation. And the burden of proof there is upon those pushing the allegation.

But Bret, please answer one question for me: why are you and everyone else here in this discussion loathe to present such complete data to be examined?

 

[haymarket]

A 200 dollar tax to own and a forfeit of my 4th amendment rights in order to own a machine gun seems like infringement. If you tried to do that with voting you would get a mob so id say there might be infringement there.

Voting? Voting?! VOTING!!!!!!

Are you aware that in order to exercise my right to vote - a right which is mentioned no less than FIVE SEPARATE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in the Constitution - I have to first go through a process of REGISTRATION? And if I do not engage in that process of REGISTRATION that I cannot exercise my right to vote.

But that is fine and dandy and acceptable when we connect registration to voting but somehow someway when we connect registration to owning a firearm it all the sudden becomes forbidden and an infringement.

Thanks for making the comparison. :doh

 

[TurtleDude]

I am the person you are debating here. My statement was clearly meant to those in this debate right here. Not anybody in Washington DC who does not have the power to do anything anyway.

You are debating me so it is MY VIEWS that you can criticize. I am NOT responsible for any of your demonic enemies or what they may believe.

But nice attempt to move the goal posts to a different field altogether and invoke your political enemies at the same time. :doh:shock:

once again you are defining "nobody" in a most silly way in order to avoid the error in your statement.

again, its your style-you make unsupported definitions that allow you to avoid the obvious mistakes you make

 

[TurtleDude]

I think some of them fall under that. I also think there are some groups out there that truly don't know the first thing about firearms and just go on assumptions. If they would cooperate and ask for criminal control versus trying prior restraint tactics they would find help from our side.

which is why I have said in the past that there are essentially two kinds of gun banners or gun restrictionists

the ignorant/stupid and the dishonest

 

[TurtleDude]

Then fer crying out loud, the majority of all gun control arguments could not be held to that standard and when discussing your standards, I have to define standards as specious. He is correct in stating that when a government is discussing further limitations on it's citizens freedoms, the burden of proof is on the government. Is that incorrect??

If I were to ask you for compelling evidence that registration could not empower future confiscation efforts, you absolutely could not do so with any valid logic. I can state, based upon absolute logical inference, that it very well could. Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you, the burden of proof that it will not is on those that propose gun registration.

You are in essence arguing from ignorance. While you may very well claim I am as well, one of us is wrong. If I am wrong and registration does not lead to confiscation in our country, then you are not harmed. If you are wrong, I am harmed. The physicians maxim seems to be an appropriate standard in this case. "First, do no harm".

his error is based on his premise that registration is an undisputed benefit for society (anything the dems support tends to get that presumption I have seen) and he refuses to deal with the fact that there is no evidence of that to support his presumption

 

[HumanBeing]

The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.

But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself

Burden of proof - Debatepedia



For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.

I'm not sure you quite understood what you were saying, you quoted a correct fact, but then used it to draw the opposite conclusion. Burden of proof when it comes to restricting things is on the person who wants to make the restrictions to prove they are necassary, and when relevant that they don't violate the constitution. You're the one claiming that infringing doesn't equate to an infringement (I can't even keep a straight face when I type that), so if you want to restrict anything, the burden is on you to prove that infringing doesn't lead to infringement. Good luck with that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nobody is denying you any right.

again you cannot define the definitions. You claim if you can exercise a right after massive cost and delay it has not been denied or infringed. That is horsecrap. In California you cannot own a machine gun period. That is DENIAL. and if you are poor, you cannot either due to the DEMOCRATS. that is a denial. but you will then claim you never had the right to own one anyway which is again your MO to try to avoid the consequences of your claims