• 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!

Time to stop supporting gun control laws that will not work and support one that will.

C

craig

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
11,004
Reaction score
4,409
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Register gun owners federally similar to concealed carry. Only gun owners can buy or be in possession of guns. Must be 21 and take classes and pass all background checks. Anyone in possession of a firearm not a registered gun owner is guilty of a felony and subject to instant arrest and prosecution. Gun owners must post a $5000 dollar bond subject to forfeit if they fail to secure their guns from non-gunowners including theft. This will replace other existing gun laws.

This would have prevented many of the latest shooting. The shooters are young and will not go through the process of being registered and post a $5000 bond. It will also prevent many illegal street sales and reduce gun thefts because gun owners will have some liability and the penalty of having a gun and not be a registered gun owner will be significant and easily confirmed by law enforcement.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, it's actually the bullets if you want to get technical

That's like saying a bag of uncut heroin is perfectly harmless....
Click to expand...
Yes it only harms if a person puts it into his arm or sells it to someone that does. It is magical thinking (and bad grammar) to give the inanimate volition.
 
The only problem in this solution is that the guns are still around and people feel they need them. If we could fix those two things it would be a good plan.
 
brianpatrick said:
The only problem in this solution is that the guns are still around and people feel they need them. If we could fix those two things it would be a good plan.
Click to expand...
So you just want an issue? I proposed something moderate (and perhaps passable) that could make a difference. You do the same.
 
craig said:
Register gun owners federally similar to concealed carry. Only gun owners can buy or be in possession of guns. Must be 21 and take classes and pass all background checks. Anyone in possession of a firearm not a registered gun owner is guilty of a felony and subject to instant arrest and prosecution. Gun owners must post a $5000 dollar bond subject to forfeit if they fail to secure their guns from non-gunowners including theft. This will replace other existing gun laws.

This would have prevented many of the latest shooting. The shooters are young and will not go through the process of being registered and post a $5000 bond. It will also prevent many illegal street sales and reduce gun thefts because gun owners will have some liability and the penalty of having a gun and not be a registered gun owner will be significant and easily confirmed by law enforcement.
Click to expand...

No.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people keep missing? Such laws would reduce the right to a government controlled privilege.

Registration does nothing but show the government who owns a gun, what kinds they have, and where they live. All the better to confiscate when/if gun restrictions on "registered owners" reduce the right to a sham.

I keep repeating I don't own any guns because I do not yet feel a need.

If I ever do choose to however, it will be because I fear my own government more than not, and I certainly would not obey any law that violates my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people keep missing?

Registration does nothing but show the government who owns a gun, what kinds they have, and where they live. All the better to confiscate when/if gun restrictions on "registered owners" reduce the right to a sham.

I keep repeating I don't own any guns. If I ever do choose so however, it will be because I fear my own government more than not, and I certainly would not obey any law that violates my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
Where does it say the government can't know who has guns. Or that you should be a stable person to own one.
 
craig said:
Where does it say the government can't know who has guns. Or that you should be a stable person to own one.
Click to expand...

Wrong question.

Where does it say the government has a right to know who has guns?

What it does say regarding possession is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Your registration requirements create a class of citizen called "gun owners" who must meet those "conditions" in order to be classified as such.

However, that is not what the 2A says is it? It states the right of "the people" to...

Now IMO one can restrict prisoners who have lost all their rights of citizenship due to conviction and incarceration during the term of their judicial punishment. One can also restrict those deemed mentally ill and have also been placed in "secure facilities" due to mental defect. One might even define children too young to know the danger of a weapon and are likely to harm themselves or others all unintentionally.

But the "right" of self-defense and the defense of others is not a "privilege" granted by government. It is inherent, and self-enforcing.

Basically, I don't need anyone's permission to defend myself, my family, my property, or to band together with friends and neighbors to defend ourselves from all comers as best we are able.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Wrong question.

Where does it say the government has a right to know who has guns?

What it does say regarding possession is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Your registration requirements create a class of citizen called "gun owners" who must meet those "conditions" in order to be classified as such.

However, that is not what the 2A says is it? It states the right of "the people" to...

Now IMO one can restrict prisoners who have lost all their rights of citizenship due to conviction and incarceration during the term of their judicial punishment. One can also restrict those deemed mentally ill and have also been placed in "secure facilities" due to mental defect. One might even define children too young to know the danger of a weapon and are likely to harm themselves or others all unintentionally.

But the inherent "right" of self-defense and the defense of others is not a "privilege" granted by government. It is inherent, and self-enforcing.
Click to expand...
I disagree. No freedom is so absolute that it should not be tempered by what is reasonable.
 
craig said:
I disagree. No freedom is so absolute that it should not be tempered by what is reasonable.
Click to expand...
No freedom is so absolute that it should not be tempered by you think is reasonable. Key concept: Constitutional right.

Would you accept having to post a $5000 bond in order to post on the internet? To vote, thereby disenfranchising the poor?

The problem with requiring training is that it is so often abused as a means of making it difficult to impossible to get a gun. See Emily Got Her Gun, a series about the hoops you had to jump through to get a gun in Washington DC.
 
Last edited:
craig said:
I disagree. No freedom is so absolute that it should not be tempered by what is reasonable.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "anarchy," which is what you have just stated in so many words?

What you are suggesting is "regulating" the right to keep and bear arms. In such a way that the government defines who is a "gun owner" and who is not.

Once again, this action turns the right into a government controlled privilege. I will never condone any such thing.

Why? Give the State an inch, and it will seek to take a mile. Let it take a mile, and it will subsequently seek to take every distance it can reach.

Having said that, I agree it is not "absolute." For example:

Punish people for misuse? Fine.

Deprive one of the right if convicted of a violent crime and incarcerated? For the period of their punishment, fine. But I advocate once a person has fully paid what the law requires for the crime, then ALL rights of citizenship should be restored.

Even rules for concealed carry might be permissible because other citizens should be able to see if one is armed, the better to treat each other with respect, and be aware of a possible threat.

But very few "conditions" beyond that.
 
Last edited:
natman said:
No freedom is so absolute that it should not be tempered by you think is reasonable. Key concept: Constitutional right.

Would you accept having to post a $5000 bond in order to post on the internet? To vote, thereby disenfranchising the poor?

The problem with requiring training is that it is so often abused as a means of making it difficult to impossible to get a gun. See Emily Got Her Gun, a series about the hoops you had to jump through to get a gun in Washington DC.
Click to expand...
natman said:
No freedom is so absolute that it should not be tempered by you think is reasonable. Key concept: Constitutional right.

Would you accept having to post a $5000 bond in order to post on the internet? To vote, thereby disenfranchising the poor?

The problem with requiring training is that it is so often abused as a means of making it difficult to impossible to get a gun. See Emily Got Her Gun, a series about the hoops you had to jump through to get a gun in Washington DC.
Click to expand...
Being a gun owner is a serious responsibility. The misuse of guns by the young, irresponsible, and disturbed show a few hoops are necessary.
 
Gun proliferation proponents will always say that the solution to gun violence is more guns and no gun laws. From their cold dead hearts.
 
Antiwar said:
Gun proliferation proponents will always say that the solution to gun violence is more guns and no gun laws. From their cold dead hearts.
Click to expand...
So what do you propose? The current gun laws don't work and those proposed won't either.
 
craig said:
Register gun owners federally similar to concealed carry. Only gun owners can buy or be in possession of guns. Must be 21 and take classes and pass all background checks. Anyone in possession of a firearm not a registered gun owner is guilty of a felony and subject to instant arrest and prosecution. Gun owners must post a $5000 dollar bond subject to forfeit if they fail to secure their guns from non-gunowners including theft. This will replace other existing gun laws.

This would have prevented many of the latest shooting. The shooters are young and will not go through the process of being registered and post a $5000 bond. It will also prevent many illegal street sales and reduce gun thefts because gun owners will have some liability and the penalty of having a gun and not be a registered gun owner will be significant and easily confirmed by law enforcement.
Click to expand...
ROFL!

You know that mandatory federal registration of any kind, not just firearm registration, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, right?

There is no age or training requirement within the Second Amendment, therefore imposing an age or training requirement constitutes an infringement of the Second Amendment. Personally, I was using firearms since the age of 8, and owned my own personal firearm by age 10.

Mandatory universal federal background checks has already been held to be unconstitutional, a violation of the Tenth Amendment, by the Supreme Court in 1997.

Imposing any kind of bond on a constitutionally protected right is not only a seriously stupid idea, it also grossly violates the Second and Eighth Amendments.

Clearly you have no clue. You should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination.

The funniest part of your post is that you claim to be a "moderate." :ROFLMAO:
 
Antiwar said:
Gun proliferation proponents will always say that the solution to gun violence is more guns and no gun laws. From their cold dead hearts.
Click to expand...
While the anti-American left want to see even more women raped by denying them access to their constitutionally protected right to be armed and well-protected. How does it feel to be a rape-enabler?
 
craig said:
Where does it say the government can't know who has guns. Or that you should be a stable person to own one.
Click to expand...
you are confused. the issue is what can the government properly do based on powers delegated to it. Registration of firearms is not a proper power
 
craig said:
So what do you propose? The current gun laws don't work and those proposed won't either.
Click to expand...
define "don't work" do you feel the same way about laws banning

armed robbery
rape
Arson
Breaking and entering
felonious assault
embezzlement
theft by deception
kidnapping
"white" slavery and child porn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom