Purely academic discussion about gun control

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Ronstar, Aug 29, 2018.

  1. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By the same token, the united state supreme court has never ruled in favor of such nonsensical limits. Nor is it likely that they would, as such would never pass strict scrutiny.
     
    Reality likes this.
  2. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you aware that if you purchase two or more handguns within five business days that the ATF is so informed?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
  3. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, but they have ruled that a deprivation of liberty is per se harm.

    I can easily prove you're depriving them of their liberty, therefore your statement that there was no harm is false. A simple point, why is it so difficult for you to accept it?
     
  4. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    being limited to one handgun purchase a month is not a deprivation of liberty.
     
  5. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's your opinion. Can you support it? Would being limited to one handgun purchase per year be a deprivation of liberty? Would being limited to one handgun purchase in ten years be a deprivation of liberty?

    Where does the Constitution or SCOTUS empower the Congress to limit the number of time that the right can be exercised?

    How would you expect the government to enforce it?
     
    Reality likes this.
  6. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pray tell how so? How would such a measure ever prove sufficient to pass constitutional muster? What compelling interest does government have that would warrant such a course of action? How is such regarded as the least restrictive approach possible in furthering such an interest?
     
    Reality likes this.
  7. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    society has a compelling interest in reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns.
     
  8. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So one per year or decade would be more effective than one per month, and therefore such levels are preferable?
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such is not a compelling government interest. Nor does the above do anything to explain just how such an attempt would ever pass the hurdle of constitutional muster. Get to work in demonstrating how the measure is legitimate rather than arbitrary and capricious.
     
  10. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sure it is
     
  11. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So one per year or decade would be more effective than one per month, and therefore such levels are preferable?
     
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If reducing the chance of criminals getting their hands on firearms was truly a compelling government interest, these individuals would not be released back into society to begin with. But such is not being done, so it is not a compelling government interest.

    Now get back to work in explaining how restricting legal firearm sales to only one every thirty days passes constitutional muster. Demonstrate how it is the least restrictive approach possible in achieving such a goal.
     
  13. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    unConstitutional to have life-in-prison for all crimes.
     
  14. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was yourself who wished to engage in a purely academic discussion without reliance on the united states constitution as a defense against certain proposals. Now it appears that desire is being walked back when the proposal entails something that is not supported on the part of yourself.

    Such contradictory matters aside, what difference does it make? According to yourself, government has a legitimate, compelling interest in preventing criminal individuals from illegally gaining access to firearms. If that interest is truly legitimate, and so compelling, that it warrants infringement of one constitutional right in order to achieve, then it can legitimately warrant infringement of a different constitutional right if it has the potential for greater effectiveness.
     
    Rucker61 likes this.
  15. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yes it is. and what you fail to understand is this. Since government doesn't have the proper power to ban you from buying a gun, it doesn't suddenly gain that power based on your exercise of your rights
     
  16. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    you don't understand government powers. The federal government doesn't have the power to ban or prevent you from buying a handgun due to the second amendment. This negative restriction on government does not suddenly disappear-nor does the government gain a power it never had-merely because you have just bought a gun
     
  17. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course it is. Liberty is the ability to do what you choose. Not being able to buy more than one handgun a month does deprive me of that ability to choose.
     
  18. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    REad for comprehension. He said that most guns used in California crimes were bought originally in California. Only California laws would influence that.
     
  19. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, not necessarily suffering harm, but it is a deprivation of liberty.
     
  20. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And limiting me to buying one handgun a month does nothing to reduce the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns.
     
  21. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can anyone propose any debate about guns and set aside the 2nd? That's pure folly. Its a weak attempt to 'normalize' people to an idea, ignore the Constitution, and discuss issues and find weak points that can be exploited without an amendment...
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what people do when the hate the fact the Constitution prevents them from running roughshod over the rights of the people.
     
    Dispondent likes this.
  23. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    because the USA is not the only nation on Earth.
     
  24. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you want to make the US like some other nation on Earth?
     
  25. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the thread is an academic discussion about what authority a society should have regarding guns
     

Share This Page