What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights? (1 Viewer)

[Progressive86]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are getting at.

What I was trying to say there was the reason so many people get arms illegally is because there are so many laws against gun rights and the black market is a way to get around this.

Which regulations have you proposed (besides registration of firearms)?

The one you listed was one and the other was having a license to obtain guns.

 

[Ikari]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

What I was trying to say there was the reason so many people get arms illegally is because there are so many laws against gun rights and the black market is a way to get around this.

So wait, you're then saying that if we get rid of all laws barring say registration and a license, that you can decrease the number of illegal guns out there? Perhaps, I'm not sure I buy it. Though I'm always on board for throwing gun laws out the window....where they should be.

The one you listed was one and the other was having a license to obtain guns.

I don't like this because it implies that gun ownership is a government granted privilege and not a right.

 

[lizzie]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

What I was trying to say there was the reason so many people get arms illegally is because there are so many laws against gun rights and the black market is a way to get around this.

This makes no sense.

The one you listed was one and the other was having a license to obtain guns.

What would licensing gun owners do that you believe would be beneficial? Criminals aren't going to get licensed (nor register their guns).

 

[Progressive86]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

So wait, you're then saying that if we get rid of all laws barring say registration and a license, that you can decrease the number of illegal guns out there? Perhaps, I'm not sure I buy it. Though I'm always on board for throwing gun laws out the window....where they should be.

Well it sounds like a conspiracy but what I was getting at was the laws that we have now that make it harder for the law abiding citizens to have guns but easy for those who get them illegally.

I don't like this because it implies that gun ownership is a government granted privilege and not a right.

How so? All I'm saying is that I consider they should be registered and licensed. Not that we should exclude certain people from owning guns.

 

[Ikari]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Permits and licenses are forms of permission. If you have to ask permission, it's not a right; it's a granted privilege.

 

[Progressive86]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

This makes no sense.

How doesn't it make sense?

What would licensing gun owners do that you believe would be beneficial? Criminals aren't going to get licensed (nor register their guns).

There's really nothing beneficial about it but at the same time I don't think it's something that hurts the law abiding citizens in any way either.

And like I said earlier, There's really nothing you can do to stop the criminals from having unlicensed and unregistered guns.

 

[lizzie]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

There's really nothing beneficial about it but at the same time I don't think it's something that hurts the law abiding citizens in any way either.

It infringes on a constitutional right. It may not "hurt" you, but it highly offends me. I'm sure you know the quote about trading freedoms for security.

 

[Progressive86]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Permits and licenses are forms of permission. If you have to ask permission, it's not a right; it's a granted privilege.

That was a good comeback. I'm beginning to think that you and lizzie have the right stance on this particular issue.

 

[Progressive86]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

It infringes on a constitutional right. It may not "hurt" you, but it highly offends me. I'm sure you know the quote about trading freedoms for security.

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."

- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Phantom]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

A ban on certain individuals form exercising 2nd amendment rights.

This is the only reasonable thing I can think of. This should only be used against felons though, not law abiding citizens or petty criminals.

 

[lizzie]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I'm beginning to think that you and lizzie have the right stance on this particular issue.

To me, what it boils down to is simple. Government systems, by their nature (because of the nature of man) has a desire to increase power and control. It's not surprising, but it's just that way. This country was a great experiment in the history of mankind (so far). It's founding was based on rights of the individual and limited government. Our founders were highly intelligent and reasonable men who understood human nature and systems of power. They tried to insure that liberty could be maintained constitutionally, but they understood that a free people must desire freedom over security and must be of high moral and intellectual substance for it to work. So far, we have managed to maintain our freedoms somewhat, but when people are no longer willing to risk personal security and hand over their rights willingly, in exchange for security in the form of money, goods, personal safety, etc, freedoms will start diminishing. My personal values are akin to those of the founders. I take offense to government encroachment on constitutional rights.

 

[Pal]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I don't like this because it implies that gun ownership is a government granted privilege and not a right.

I believe gun ownership should be a privelege granted by the government. Driving is a privelege granted by the government because of the damage a person can do with a car if they don't know how to operate it. Guns can do just as much damage but actually have the intended purpose of killing or wounding people, while that's just a regrettable side effect of cars. No one should be allowed to use something that could easily kill innocent people if used incorrectly without the proper training. Considering the amount of training Police Officers must go through before they're entrusted with guns it just seems like a given to me that ordinary people who want to use guns should have to have some sort of training.

Of course, I understand that the Constitution disagrees with me. I don't need reminding.

 

[jacksbrat]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I believe gun ownership should be a privelege granted by the government. Driving is a privelege granted by the government because of the damage a person can do with a car if they don't know how to operate it. Guns can do just as much damage but actually have the intended purpose of killing or wounding people, while that's just a regrettable side effect of cars. No one should be allowed to use something that could easily kill innocent people if used incorrectly without the proper training. Considering the amount of training Police Officers must go through before they're entrusted with guns it just seems like a given to me that ordinary people who want to use guns should have to have some sort of training.

Of course, I understand that the Constitution disagrees with me. I don't need reminding.

I've always thought it was kinda silly to give guns special treatment just because they happened to have been invented and something new at the time the constitution was written. Like stated above, cars are licensed regestered. The driver has to be of age, trained, licenced and insured. And the purpose of a car is just to transport someone from here to there. Yet we have guns that are made for one purpose, and that's to kill, and we're suppose to let any Tom, Dick, or Harry that can reach the top of a counter and flop the money down to buy all he wants. That's just plain silly. Why does someone's right to own a gun outwaigh my right to go outside without having to dodge bullets?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I've always thought it was kinda silly to give guns special treatment just because they happened to have been invented and something new at the time the constitution was written. Like stated above, cars are licensed regestered. The driver has to be of age, trained, licenced and insured. And the purpose of a car is just to transport someone from here to there. Yet we have guns that are made for one purpose, and that's to kill, and we're suppose to let any Tom, Dick, or Harry that can reach the top of a counter and flop the money down to buy all he wants. That's just plain silly. Why does someone's right to own a gun outwaigh my right to go outside without having to dodge bullets?

When was the last time you dodged a bullet?
How about a licensed and registered car?

I can tell you from personal experience that dodging cars happens with great frequency, more so than any bullets.

 

[lizzie]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I say someone can't own a gun that really has no practical use in self-defense or sport. An anti-material rifle is one, an RPG is another.

Self-defense is always practical.

 

[lizzie]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I've always thought it was kinda silly to give guns special treatment just because they happened to have been invented and something new at the time the constitution was written.

Is this really what you believe?

Why does someone's right to own a gun outwaigh my right to go outside without having to dodge bullets?

It sounds like you are either being a drama king or you've living in a bad neighborhood, either of which can be remedied.

 

[Ikari]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Why does someone's right to own a gun outwaigh my right to go outside without having to dodge bullets?

Because the never ending contest for liberty and freedom is greater than your near zero chance of randomly being shot. Jesus, people need to take statistics.

 

[ronpaulvoter]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You left out the CORRECT answer -- NONE OF THE ABOVE.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Well it sounds like a conspiracy but what I was getting at was the laws that we have now that make it harder for the law abiding citizens to have guns but easy for those who get them illegally.

So basically the only thing unconstitutional laws do is ensure that only the thugs and government have certain weapons but not individuals who most likely are not going to harm any one?

How so? All I'm saying is that I consider they should be registered and licensed. Not that we should exclude certain people from owning guns.

So you would not mind the same standards being imposed of 1st amendment rights? As long as someone has a permit or license, takes the appropriate classes on hate speech, libel, threats against someone and treason they would still be able to say what ever they want, go to what ever church they want or report what they want or complain to the government.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You left out the CORRECT answer -- NONE OF THE ABOVE.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...d-second-amendment-rights.html#post1058653573

 

[Goobieman]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Any restriction/regulation that meets a test of strict scrutiny - that is, acts prusuant to a comelling state interest in the least restrctive way possible.

To that end:

A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 1st amendment rights
No

A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 2nd amendment rights
No

Registration requirement of some or all of your books,newspaper and other 1st amendment related things
No

Registration requirement of some or all of your firearms and other weapons.
No

A ban on certain books,religions, what the press can report and etc.
No

A ban on certain weapons.
No

A ban on certain individuals from exercising 1st amendment rights
No

A ban on certain individuals form exercising 2nd amendment rights
No

A total ban on 1st amendment rights
No

A total ban on 2nd amendment rights
No

 

[Goobieman]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Most of the choices I believe are unreasonable but I think when it comes to certain issues with gun laws there should be some rules. I don't agree with the idea of unregistered gun owning and stuff like that....

Why?
How is registration of a gun -not- an infringement?

 

[Progressive86]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

So basically the only thing unconstitutional laws do is ensure that only the thugs and government have certain weapons but not individuals who most likely are not going to harm any one?

Unconstitutional laws do more than just that, I just think that a major component of that is when you take away the rights of the good citizens to have access to guns. That's what causes more problems because it almost pushes people to go into the direction of the black market or endanger those who don't have the right to arms themselves against those who have gotten them illegally.

So you would not mind the same standards being imposed of 1st amendment rights? As long as someone has a permit or license, takes the appropriate classes on hate speech, libel, threats against someone and treason they would still be able to say what ever they want, go to what ever church they want or report what they want or complain to the government.

No, Absolutely not. I didn't even select that as one of my choices because I'm against that. Freedom of speech is a right that I believe ALL people should be able to exercise, Not just people with licenses and permits.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

None of the above.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I've always thought it was kinda silly to give guns special treatment just because they happened to have been invented and something new at the time the constitution was written.

Guns were not something new at the time.You should perhaps do a little research before making such idiotic statements.Portable firearms have at least been around at least since the 1300s in Europe(much earlier in China).

Like stated above, cars are licensed regestered. The driver has to be of age, trained, licenced and insured. And the purpose of a car is just to transport someone from here to there.

A car is not a constitutional right, I am pretty sure that if they had cars back then then it might have been in the Constitution. If you want people to be trained in fire arm safety then petition the government to make make firearms safety a mandatory class in public schools.Since it is a right you can not legally(any such laws would be a violation of the constitution and therefore illegal) make it an actual requirement to purchase a firearm.

Yet we have guns that are made for one purpose, and that's to kill,

Since the Chinese first discovered gun powder and figured out that you can use it to propel objects out of a tube that has been the purpose of any fire arm regardless if it is a canon, machine gun, hand canon/hand gun or some other type of gun.
If they were made to tickle people then I do not think anyone would want one.

and we're suppose to let any Tom, Dick, or Harry that can reach the top of a counter and flop the money down to buy all he wants.

Yes. Because it is a right in this country to keep and bear arms.

That's just plain silly.

No its not,what is silly is you thinking that your desire to feel a 100% safe trumps constitutional rights.

Why does someone's right to own a gun outwaigh my right to go outside without having to dodge bullets?

You must live on a gun range if you are having to doge bullets. I live in Oklahoma too and I never had to dodge a bullet in any neighborhoods I lived in.