Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[healthmyths]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

And a "strong of Americans"??? are unaware THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS NOT enforcing the existing 300 Federal/state laws from the 3,144 counties or 19,354 towns and cities laws!
Here is the current status of gun law prosecutions!

President Obama's administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws,
cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush.
Gun prosecutions under Obama down more than 45 percent

Why should there be more laws that won't be enforced?

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Interstate commerce. It's a weak argument but they will argue that commerce within the state affects commerce between states. They will cite Wickard v Fillbern as proof.

Sure, they can claim anything they want. But they'd have to make the case the buying a weapon from one's neighbor is commerce among the states. Which it isn't. They might as well try to claim that a horse is a fish.

That gun wasn't made in one place. Parts were made in other states and other nations. That makes it fall under the commerce clause.

Same with the bullets that are used in that gun.

It's been ruled over and over again by the courts.

But undo regulations would violate our rights, that's the point.

Tell that to the courts of our nation.

Your opinion means nothing what means something and is law is how our courts rule.

The courts have ruled over and over background checks are perfectly legal.

Stop lying.

Where did they do that?
Anyway, background checks apply to licensed dealers, who are licensed by the federal gov't to begin with since they engage in interstate commerce.
What is being talked about is extending that to intrastate commerce, which is beyond the federal gov'ts power. See Lopez.

 

[OKTexas]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

That's easy. But only if you have bothered to learn about the constitution beyond the second amendment.

It's called the Commerce Clause. When goods or services are sold, that's commerce.

Which means when a gun is sold, that's commerce and can be regulated by the government.

Seriously here, learn about our constitution. There's more to it than the second amendment.

Maybe you should read the commerce clause, it doesn't apply to commerce within a state.

 

[OKTexas]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Then you need to go read and understand our constitution.

The Commerce Clause gives the government the right to regulate gun sales.

When goods or services are sold, that's commerce.

I can't believe you're that ignorant of our constitution.

You're the one displaying ignorance.

 

[Iceweasel]

Interesting how libs want to expand government powers to do their will but have no issue with sanctuary cities that are clearly violating federal law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL"

This is the problem: Guns shouldn't be "political" - but it's been contrived into a wedge issue by the right.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL"

This is the problem: Guns shouldn't be "political" - but it's been contrived into a wedge issue by the right.

LOL! Which prominent politician has moved this issue to the top of his agenda? Right, it's that notorious right wing crank Barack Obama.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL"

This is the problem: Guns shouldn't be "political" - but it's been contrived into a wedge issue by the right.

Huh?

 

[easyt65]

Let's BE specific!

Name 1 law that did / does not exist that would have prevented the TERRORIST the Obama administration 'thoroughly screened' and allowed into the US from killing the 14 American citizens in Ca - a state with some of the strictest already existing gun laws in the nation !

THERE ISN'T / AEN'T ANY!
(WHERE is Obama's politicization of TERRORISTS being able to freely come into the US, through govt screening despite his declaration that the only threats that can make it through HIS screenings are 'widows and orphans'? The only widows and orphans are those resulting from HIS FAILED screening process and inability (or desire, it seems) to keep Americans safe!)

Instead of worrying so much about increasing, making more strict, the screening process for law-abiding US citizens, PERHAPS Generalissimo Obama should focus INSTEAD on fixing / repairing / updating / correcting his own administration's FAILED screening processes that have resulted in yet ANOTHER successful terrorist attack and deaths of American citizens on US soil...especially if he wants / intends to bring 65,000 more Syrians here and dole out thousands more Visas to potential threats to the US.

In his arrogance and narcissism he granted approval to run a program that (since you Libs always like to bring up Bush) BUSH REFUSED TO ALLOW (because he saw how it was DESTINED TO FAIL) - Fast and Furious, a program that provided THOUSANDS of automatic weapons AND GRENADES to Mexican Drug Cartels...resulting in the deaths of OVER 500 people, to include 2 American citizens. Obama was so distraught by the loss of life and so eager to politicize this criminal irresponsibility with firearms that:
- NO one was FIRED.
- NO one was held accountable.
- Obama's Atty General became the 1st US Atty General to be Censured (for his crimes of Perjury) but was spared prosecution
- His administration is STILL dragging this scandal out - that began 7 YEARS AGO

Nope...no massive politicization of this one...

He public MOCKED US citizens while overseas, inferring they were cowards with no valid justification for their fear for our national security or their own safety...despite the fact that Obama failed to prevent 3 terrorist attack on US soil and that immediately after saying he had ISIS contained ISIS perpetrated the Paris attack...making Obama look like an idiot.

HE has vowed that HIS own administration's security / background checks are so thorough that the biggest threat that could slip through into the US would be 'widows and orphans'...then Karma / fate stepped immediately in by allowing a terrorist HIS iron-clad process allowed into the US to kill 14 Americans.

Does he come back from Hawaii to APLOGIZE for HIS administration's failure and a promise to FIX his administration's JOKE of a background investigation process? NO! He is fired up about imposing more restrictions and processes on law-abiding citizens, NONE OF WHICH WILL STOP ANYTHING.

It's just part of the plan to continue to grow and escalate govt control of gun ownership in America.

FIX YOUR OWN SHITE AND PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS, OBAMA!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

My assertion that congress has no power to enact arms control legislation is based on the fact that that constitution does not specify that it has the power to do so. If you can cite any of congress' enumerated powers that would allow it to restrict the possession of arms by the people of the several states, feel free to cite the relevant language.

That is a broad statement which is true for some circumstances and false for others. For example, one might say the Sun never rises at midnight, but that ignores the fact that the Sun is ALWAYS rising somewhere on Earth when it's midnight somewhere else.

The National Firearms Act (1934), the first US arms control legislation, imposed fines and penalties for transferring ownership of machine guns and rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 18" long if a $200 tax was not paid by the transferor and the appropriate stamps and paperwork being lawfully obtained. That statute was ruled by SCOTUS as constitutional in US v. Miller given a violation the Act for taking a sawed-off shotgun outside of the requirements of the Act across State lines...from the opinion in Miller by Justice McReynolds;

An indictment in the District Court, Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4 [§ 5], 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 2, United States Code (June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the "National Firearms Act," approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States. [Emphasis Added]
< United States v. Miller >

Also, from the Syllabus of US v. Miller:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 177.

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. [Emphasis Added]
< Ibid >

It is clear from the opinion in Miller that Congress framed the National Firearms Act (1934) to conform with all constitutional requirements and did not infringe on any individual Rights. The Act was a justified use of the enumerated powers of Congress in exercising their power to regulate interstate commerce. One can also find a Congressional misuse of that same power in a later case, U. S. v. Lopez (1995), where the commerce clause application was a gross overreach.

 

[easyt65]

I predict yet ANOTHER successful terrorist attack during the Obama administration, during this last year of his Presidency... and once again, unlike during other attacks in which he has politicized, he will be quick to threaten the American people, directing them NOT to talk badly of Muslims in the aftermath.

 

[the_human_being]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?

Fetuses aren't people.

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Actually the post was addressing premeditated murder, not death from natural causes.

 

[the_human_being]

I predict yet ANOTHER successful terrorist attack during the Obama administration, during this last year of his Presidency... and once again, unlike during other attacks in which he has politicized, he will be quick to threaten the American people, directing them NOT to talk badly of Muslims in the aftermath.

Yess, he is quick to punish law abiding citizens for the acts of others.

 

[Centinel]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

That's easy. But only if you have bothered to learn about the constitution beyond the second amendment.

It's called the Commerce Clause. When goods or services are sold, that's commerce.

Which means when a gun is sold, that's commerce and can be regulated by the government.

Seriously here, learn about our constitution. There's more to it than the second amendment.

The commerce clause empowers congress not to regulate any commerce but to regulate commerce among the several states.

Importing steel from another state IS commerce among the states, and congress may regulate this activity.

Manufacturing a firearm is not commerce.

Selling a firearm to one's neighbor in the same state is not commerce among the states. It is commerce within a single state, and congress has no enumerated power to regulate such commerce.

Congress only has the power to regulate commerce among the states.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

That's easy. But only if you have bothered to learn about the constitution beyond the second amendment.

It's called the Commerce Clause. When goods or services are sold, that's commerce.

Which means when a gun is sold, that's commerce and can be regulated by the government.

Seriously here, learn about our constitution. There's more to it than the second amendment.

The Commerce Clause does not provide the government authority to override constitutionally-mandated restrictions upon it.

A sentiment has long developed in federal politics, not restricted to the Left, that the Commerce and General Welfare clauses give the government carte blanche to do whatever the hell it pleases. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor further from the intent of the Founders.

 

[paulitician]

Doesn't matter, the NWO Globalists will continue attacking the U.S. Constitution and moving towards their goal of disarming the populace completely. It's a plan. You give em an inch, they demand a mile. Their ultimate goal is to disarm the populace. So no matter the compromise, they'll only demand more.

It's a 'Death by a Thousand Cuts' approach. It's a slow systematic disarming process. They just keep whittling away at the Constitution. The NWO Global Elites have already disarmed most of the world's populace. They now see America as their final obstacle. So we who still fight for the Constitution, will have to stay vigilant on compromise. Because they will demand more. Bet on that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks

But if a guy flunks the background check, it's unconstitutional for the govt to forbid him to buy a gun.

Whether you or I like it or not. And even whether a 51% margin of voters like it or not.

You can change that by amending the Constitution, to give Congress the power to regulate firearms.

But until you do that, Congress has no power to regulate them at all.

Let us know how your quest to repeal the 2nd amendment works out, OK?

 

[easyt65]

The commerce clause empowers congress not to regulate any commerce but to regulate commerce among the several states.
.
.
Congress only has the power to regulate commerce among the states.

Congress is also responsible for authoring, drafting, and passing legislation - NOT the President. This is clearly spelled out in the Separation of Powers in the Constitution. Executive Orders were NEVER meant for a President to bypass Congress to create his own law.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.

I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.

Let's see...they outlawed the manufacture of the Thompson but you can still get one from the dealer? Tommy guns are wildly inaccurate in full auto so you would be wrong, they are less lethal in general than a AR or AK. Plus they are a sub gun, chambered for a pistol round, the .45 acp. That's why the military isn't issuing them these days.

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

They no longer allow the Chopper in the gun contests anymore since they had a tendancy to win. While the 2nd and later bullets were inaccurate, the first one was dead on. But since they are Automatic Weapons and not in the general population they are no longer used in the shootouts.

I just love it. If you say lie enough times does that make it true? The General public isn't buying it anymore.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????