• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

The Burden of Proof in Gun Control Issues

haymarket said:
Nobody is infringing upon your rights.
Click to expand...

To buy a firearm, I have to have my named called into a FBI database. I have to pay for that and I have to wait for that and I have to wait for my handgun that I purchased.
So just right there you are wrong.
 
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

I told you that I am happy to get the info though I imagine you may find some sort of logical escape route but at this point I may be a bit biased in assuming that.
I am trying to phrase the question in a way that would translate easily. May be a few weeks to see results, but I think it will be interesting.


But please answer this. Why are you loathe to believe that in situations where restrictions are proposed on citizens freedoms, the burden of proof ethically, logically, rationally, pragmatically, legally, morally must be on the shoulders of those that propose/support the restrictions. Show me the proof that by registering my firearm, my actions and that of every other lawful citizen will significantly reduce the number of suicides and murders occuring in the inner cities. Mind you, the proof supplied would have to meet the criteria you have set forth.

Show me how you would put into place a means of preventing the abuse of that power. That seems like a reasonable request. A group of old guys back in the 1700s was able to put together a document doing something similar and it has stood up to a couple centuries of politicians trying to circumvent it (sometimes successfully given the events of the past few decades).
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
I told you that I am happy to get the info though I imagine you may find some sort of logical escape route but at this point I may be a bit biased in assuming that.
I am trying to phrase the question in a way that would translate easily. May be a few weeks to see results, but I think it will be interesting.


But please answer this. Why are you loathe to believe that in situations where restrictions are proposed on citizens freedoms, the burden of proof ethically, logically, rationally, pragmatically, legally, morally must be on the shoulders of those that propose/support the restrictions. Show me the proof that by registering my firearm, my actions and that of every other lawful citizen will significantly reduce the number of suicides and murders occuring in the inner cities. Mind you, the proof supplied would have to meet the criteria you have set forth.

Show me how you would put into place a means of preventing the abuse of that power. That seems like a reasonable request. A group of old guys back in the 1700s was able to put together a document doing something similar and has stood up to a couple centuries of people trying to circumvent it (sometimes successfully given the events of the past few decades).
Click to expand...

He already posted and re-interpreted a cherry picked definition from a two hundred year old dictionary what more do you want?
 
haymarket said:
I did have to show ID to register to vote. When my two kids turned 18 I personally went with them to sign up and they had to show ID also.
Click to expand...

Well that's what voter I'd would require every where but every time it's tried liberals throw a fit.
 
haymarket said:
let me know when you return so we can talk about this.
Click to expand...
I'll be in and out. Here's a revealing text: " One way of testing one's interpretive approach -- of distinguishing honest interpretation from mere inscription of one's own policy preferences on the text -- is applying it to a wide array of texts of different political valences. It's easy enough to craft an interpretive trick that reaches the result one wants in the case for which it was crafted. But when one tests it against other provisions, one sees more clearly whether it's a sound interpretive method." This is offered regarding interpretations of the second amendment. I supply it as a support for my contention that the principle you apply to the second should also be applied to other rights granted elsewhere in the constitution. The quote comes from a professor at the UCLA School of Law. I can give you a link if you require one.
 
CRUE CAB said:
To buy a firearm, I have to have my named called into a FBI database. I have to pay for that and I have to wait for that and I have to wait for my handgun that I purchased.
So just right there you are wrong.
Click to expand...

How does that deny your right to keep and bear arms?
 
BretJ said:
I told you that I am happy to get the info though I imagine you may find some sort of logical escape route but at this point I may be a bit biased in assuming that.
I am trying to phrase the question in a way that would translate easily. May be a few weeks to see results, but I think it will be interesting.


But please answer this. Why are you loathe to believe that in situations where restrictions are proposed on citizens freedoms, the burden of proof ethically, logically, rationally, pragmatically, legally, morally must be on the shoulders of those that propose/support the restrictions. Show me the proof that by registering my firearm, my actions and that of every other lawful citizen will significantly reduce the number of suicides and murders occuring in the inner cities. Mind you, the proof supplied would have to meet the criteria you have set forth.

Show me how you would put into place a means of preventing the abuse of that power. That seems like a reasonable request. A group of old guys back in the 1700s was able to put together a document doing something similar and it has stood up to a couple centuries of politicians trying to circumvent it (sometimes successfully given the events of the past few decades).
Click to expand...

Nothing I have proposed would deny anyone their Constitutional rights. Nothing.

I never stated that registration of your weapons would reduce suicides nor murders.
 
humbolt said:
I'll be in and out. Here's a revealing text: " One way of testing one's interpretive approach -- of distinguishing honest interpretation from mere inscription of one's own policy preferences on the text -- is applying it to a wide array of texts of different political valences. It's easy enough to craft an interpretive trick that reaches the result one wants in the case for which it was crafted. But when one tests it against other provisions, one sees more clearly whether it's a sound interpretive method." This is offered regarding interpretations of the second amendment. I supply it as a support for my contention that the principle you apply to the second should also be applied to other rights granted elsewhere in the constitution. The quote comes from a professor at the UCLA School of Law. I can give you a link if you require one.
Click to expand...

You will have to give the professors phone number also as I have little idea what he is talking about.
 
haymarket said:
Nothing I have proposed would deny anyone their Constitutional rights. Nothing.

I never stated that registration of your weapons would reduce suicides nor murders.
Click to expand...
Nothing you have stated overtly at least....

Then what is the compelling purpose behind it? Every gun registration advocate I have heard and every article written on it states that is the reason it is necessary.

Ahhh....I see.....let me rephrase the argument. I assume your point is that registration of my weapons will not directly affect suicide and murders but the overall results of a registration master plan would lead to a reduction of suicides and murders. It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
Nothing you have stated overtly at least....

Then what is the compelling purpose behind it? Every gun registration advocate I have heard and every article written on it states that is the reason it is necessary.

Ahhh....I see.....let me rephrase the argument. I assume your point is that registration of my weapons will not directly affect suicide and murders but the overall results of a registration master plan would lead to a reduction of suicides and murders. It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Click to expand...

My support for registration is given as it would be a tool to help law enforcement fight crime.
 
haymarket said:
My support for registration is given as it would be a tool to help law enforcement fight crime.
Click to expand...

well given in the areas where it exists there is no evidence that it does so

your argument is as pathetic as one citing sarah brady's opposition to liberalizing concealed carry weapons on the grounds she claims such laws would lead to increased shootings over say road rage. even though her predictions completely failed in almost every state, that asshole continues to spew her crap

there is no value to registration. It cannot be constitutionally enforced upon those who cannot legally own a gun thus it is not applicable to the very people who cause most of the gun crime. And it has been used as a tool to facilitate confiscation or punitive taxes on gun owners

in other words, there is far more evidence of its harm than any proof of its benefits



rather than lip-syncing what some anti gun police union bureaucrats say, why don't you set for the rational reasons for registration
 
haymarket said:
My support for registration is given as it would be a tool to help law enforcement fight crime.
Click to expand...

A very, very expensive tool that has not been very successful in Canada for fighting crime. Registering individuals proved to be the method they finally found success with.

Frankly, I have had some pretty lively debates with my gun owning brethren over this but I have little problem with having a requirement for a gun owners endorsement on my drivers license or ID. The idea proposed was that a NICs check would be run in order to add the endorsement. Once you have the endorsement, all you would have to do is show your license in order to purchase ammunition or firearms. Your ID would be checked against the NICs database to ensure it has not been revoked for cause and there would be no record of the transaction beyond that.

I know there are some of my brethren that have issues with the idea, but what are your thoughts?
 
BretJ said:
A very, very expensive tool that has not been very successful in Canada for fighting crime. Registering individuals proved to be the method they finally found success with.

Frankly, I have had some pretty lively debates with my gun owning brethren over this but I have little problem with having a requirement for a gun owners endorsement on my drivers license or ID. The idea proposed was that a NICs check would be run in order to add the endorsement. Once you have the endorsement, all you would have to do is show your license in order to purchase ammunition or firearms. Your ID would be checked against the NICs database to ensure it has not been revoked for cause and there would be no record of the transaction beyond that.

I know there are some of my brethren that have issues with the idea, but what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

a DL with an endorsement is no problem

I won't sell a gun I own to anyone but family, coworkers, or someone with a CCW permit for CYA reasons


but that is not registration of weapons and the fact that I can own a weapon or carry one does not tell scumbags like Biden what weapons I have
 
TurtleDude said:
well given in the areas where it exists there is no evidence that it does so
Click to expand...

Lets see now - I can listen to police professionals who say it will be a valuable tool for them or I can listen to you.
 
BretJ said:
A very, very expensive tool that has not been very successful in Canada for fighting crime. Registering individuals proved to be the method they finally found success with.

Frankly, I have had some pretty lively debates with my gun owning brethren over this but I have little problem with having a requirement for a gun owners endorsement on my drivers license or ID. The idea proposed was that a NICs check would be run in order to add the endorsement. Once you have the endorsement, all you would have to do is show your license in order to purchase ammunition or firearms. Your ID would be checked against the NICs database to ensure it has not been revoked for cause and there would be no record of the transaction beyond that.

I know there are some of my brethren that have issues with the idea, but what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I would be willing to look at the details of any proposal. As a person who writes and evaluates legislation for a living, the devil is always in the details.
 
haymarket said:
Lets see now - I can listen to police professionals who say it will be a valuable tool for them or I can listen to you.
Click to expand...

police professionals? LOL-you probably think they are professional shooters too

us GM rated combat pistol shooters laugh when cops try to run with us on speed matches

heck my 15 year old is much faster and more accurate than 95% of the cops

the ones you quote are almost never the experts but the fat donut eating bureaucrats

why cannot you fashion an argument on your own

given that 90% of the cops polled by Janet Reno in her suppressed study said they believed that the brady bill was a waste of time, you don't have numbers on your side

and really Haymarket-would you quickly jettison Gideon or Miranda just because lots of cops don't like those USSC created rights for defendants?
 
haymarket said:
Lets see now - I can listen to police professionals who say it will be a valuable tool for them or I can listen to you.
Click to expand...

While you are at it, you should ask the professionals to explain how they intended to do things differently in order to avoid it becoming an expensive failure as it has in our nearest neighbor that has tried implementing registration in a culture most similar to ours. Ask them if registration in cities and states which currently require firearm registration here in the U.S. has shown a compelling benefit in fighting crime. If not, you slip into the typical argument from authority fallacy. Like you said, the devil is in the details.

I would also take into account the arguments of lawyers which have had to defend or prosecute criminals on the basis of firearms registration to determine if that was beneficial enough to warrant the costs and risks of abuse.
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
While you are at it, you should ask the professionals to explain how they intended to do things differently in order to avoid it becoming an expensive failure as it has in our nearest neighbor that has tried implementing registration in a culture most similar to ours. If not, you slip into the typical argument from authority fallacy. Like you said, the devil is in the details.
Click to expand...

the fact is most police don't support registration
 
TurtleDude said:
police professionals? LOL-you probably think they are professional shooters too
Click to expand...

You confuse me with somebody who cares about that sort of macho measurement game.

You are not a professional police officer Turtle. You are just a civilian. The idea that police work equates to the rather very limited ability to hit a target is beyond ludicrous and shows just how little you know about professional police work.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the fact is most police don't support registration
Click to expand...

Yep. I know. At least the ATF agents I teach know don't. But they must not be experienced or numerous enough to make an educated determination that it is not worth the time, money and effort. But look at me, I am arguing from authority. Shame on me. Actually, I am not.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom