• 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!

Universal BG Check Could Have Saved Lives

haymarket said:
It is NOT logical at all since books have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

L.
Click to expand...

Sure its logical because we are not talking about just the second amendment. We are talking about how rights are applied. Both the second amendment and the first amendment fall into that category and both are in the bill of rights. Therefore.. if its not a violation of rights to ban a gun.. because you can buy a different kind.

Then.. logically.. its not a violation of rights to ban books as long as you can still get a copy of the Art of the Deal.

NOW.. that's logical. UNLESS the wording in the second amendment.. specifically outlines that the government has the power to ban certain firearms...

but in fact it doesn't.

In fact.. unlike the first amendment.. the second amendment has the statement... "shall not be infringed".

Which logically.. would mean that the founders meant that even less restriction should be applied to the second amendment than to the first.

I get it. .. You don't want to use logic because.. well logically.. you don't have an argument to stand on.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure its logical because we are not talking about just the second amendment.
Click to expand...

No it is not for the reason I gave you. If all the language in the Bill of Rights were one continuous narrative like a stream of consciousness - you would have a point. It it NOT that way. Each one is separate and has its own language that applies to it and only it an no others.

Comparing reading books to owning guns is an old and empty right wing gun lovers trick and it has been exposed and no longer carries any weight.


NOW.. that's logical. UNLESS the wording in the second amendment.. specifically outlines that the government has the power to ban certain firearms...

but in fact it doesn't.

In fact.. unlike the first amendment.. the second amendment has the statement... "shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...

As long as you can exercise your right under the Second, it has NOT been infringed and it intact.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure its logical because we are not talking about just the second amendment. We are talking about how rights are applied. Both the second amendment and the first amendment fall into that category and both are in the bill of rights. Therefore.. if its not a violation of rights to ban a gun.. because you can buy a different kind.

Then.. logically.. its not a violation of rights to ban books as long as you can still get a copy of the Art of the Deal.

NOW.. that's logical. UNLESS the wording in the second amendment.. specifically outlines that the government has the power to ban certain firearms...

but in fact it doesn't.

In fact.. unlike the first amendment.. the second amendment has the statement... "shall not be infringed".

Which logically.. would mean that the founders meant that even less restriction should be applied to the second amendment than to the first.

I get it. .. You don't want to use logic because.. well logically.. you don't have an argument to stand on.
Click to expand...

your analysis is correct. As I have said for years, the second amendment (like the first) is a negative restriction on the federal government (see Cruikshank). That negative restriction does not somehow abate or wane merely because more firearms are available.
 
haymarket said:
It is right there in the place I previously identified.
Click to expand...

No. It isn't there. It says no such thing. No legislative authority for the general government to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms.
 
haymarket said:
As long as you can exercise your right under the Second, it has NOT been infringed and it intact.
Click to expand...
You're referring to the right to keep and bear arms? Many federal laws prevent the exercise of this right.
 
calamity said:
As we've said here for years, we need to close the gun show/private sale loophole.



Universal Background checks would have prevented this sale, and it very well may have saved the lives of seven dead people and prevented 25 others from being wounded.
Click to expand...

Another poster on the debatepolitics forum whose gullible enough to believe the Chicken Noodle News.
 
Beowulf said:
No. It isn't there. It says no such thing. No legislative authority for the general government to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Article I, Section 8.
 
haymarket said:
Yes it does. Article I, Section 8.
Click to expand...

That doesn't grant any legislative authority for the general government to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms. Feel free to post the relevant language.
 
haymarket said:
The analogy fails because the First Amendment and the Second Amendment deal with very different things and the rights contained in one are not the rights contained in the other. Guns are not books. The ability to read a book is different than the ability to own a gun. They are two different things.

It is intellectually dishonest to extend the properties and abilities granted by one to the other when they are different and deal with different things.
Click to expand...

Once again you revert to, "A gun is not a book." Well no kidding. What was your first clue? You still haven't explained the relevant difference between the respective rights that causes the analogy to fail.
 
haymarket said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

Did you know that there is a federal law preventing people from possessing shotguns with a barrel length shorter than eighteen inches? Those items are arms, no?
 
vegas giants said:
Change it? I am saying people on here will say gun registration is unconstitutional even though it already exists in the US
Click to expand...

I don't see how that is relevant to your analogy of registering gun owners.
 
Beowulf said:
That doesn't grant any legislative authority for the general government to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms. Feel free to post the relevant language.
Click to expand...

Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 3, 16, and 18.
 
RF667799 said:
Once again you revert to, "A gun is not a book." Well no kidding. What was your first clue? You still haven't explained the relevant difference between the respective rights that causes the analogy to fail.
Click to expand...

asked and answered.
 
haymarket said:
Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 3, 16, and 18.
Click to expand...

None of those clauses grant any legislative authority for the general government to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms.
 
Beowulf said:
Did you know that there is a federal law preventing people from possessing shotguns with a barrel length shorter than eighteen inches? Those items are arms, no?
Click to expand...

so what?
 
Beowulf said:
None of those clauses grant any legislative authority for the general government to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms.
Click to expand...

Yes they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom