CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:2
Arguments:3
Total Votes:3
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 My simple answer to saving lives without effecting law abiding gun owners, drinkers, etc. (2)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(8241) pic



My simple answer to saving lives without effecting law abiding gun owners, drinkers, etc.

What I am about to suggest will never happen because the Democrat Party and the Left's ultimate goal is takng our guns.

To keep from punishing law abiding gun purchasers, drinkers in bars, etc. while doing our best to save lives from criminals and repeat DWI drivers is this......

We need to put marks on driver licenses or identifications for people who have no driver's license, of criminals, DWI offenders, criminally insane, etc.
In this way law abiding citizens will not be inconvienced when buying guns or alcohol becuase their licences or identification will already be clean.

It would require no action on the part of law abiding citizens, but there would have to be an initial update of every criminal's or DWI offender's drivers licenses or identification, because we would now have to present these identifications when purchasing guns or alcohol.

There would be a huge debate on which crimes would get marks on their licences because we do not want trivial crimes such as Jay walking, etc. etc. included. The Americn people, NOT CORRUPT POLITICIANS, would get a chance to vote on the types of crimes that dictate a mark on the license or identification.

DONE DEAL! Simple solution for all involved but it will never happen because the Left's goal is not about saving lives. It's about ultimately taking our guns.

Republicans and the NRA would be on board becuase law abiding citizens could enjoy their contitutional freedoms of gun ownership without time consuming annoying back ground checks, resgistration of guns, etc. etc.

This could be a compromise that both sides could agree on if it were not for the fact that the Left's ultimate goal is taking our guns, as they have in many European nations and dictatorships around the world.
Add New Argument
FromWithin(8241)
1 point

We are already required to provide a license for proof of age when buying guns and alcohol. This is a no brianer for anyone not interested in taking our guns.

Support Dispute Clarify
Amarel(5669)
0 points

There are a couple issues here.

1. State policy concerning alcohol is not a Federal matter. Theoretically this applies to firearms as well. Though it has been argued that a broad interpretation of the commerce clause gives federal authority to any matter where a product (guns or alcohol) has crossed state lines. What you are proposing is an expansion of federal powers into yet another aspect of our lives.

2. Why should this be a popular vote issue?

3. Plenty of people drink but do not drive. Often people who’ve had DWI’s will continue to drink but will take a cab or have a DD. Why should a record of egregious traffic violations preclude someone from drinking in a bar and calling Uber?

4. Easy adjustment, but people are not guilty when they are arrested. They are arrested and legally considered not guilty until proven otherwise.

Support Dispute Clarify
↑ Hide Replies
FromWithin(8241) Clarified
1 point

All of these issues can be addressed, but if you say no, then you better be saying no against more Gun restrictions. You CAN NOT single out one weapon of death and leave all others alone.

The loss of alcohol priviledges will be another deterent to drinking and driving. It's quite simple... if you want the freedom to drink in bars, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. IT'S YOUR CHOICE.

There can be time limits for first offense, which would increase with repeat offenders. This is not rocket science.

If there are people who drink and do not drive, they will never get a DWI!

I told you that minor traffic violations would not be included in this mark on Licenses etc.

I am not on some crusade for these new laws. I want Liberals to stop singling out guns for their supposed outrage against loss of life. These hypocrites will never go down the road I'm suggesting because it is not the saving of lives they care about.

It's all about taking our guns one step at a time!

Support Dispute Clarify

Browse More Debates