Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[Iceweasel]

So the material to make that gun just appears out of thin air?

You're not making much sense. I admit I didn't read all you post. I got the stupid line about making a weapon and the commerce clause and just stopped reading your ridiculous tripe.

You need the materials to make that gun. Do you have your own facilities to make metal? Not many people do. Do you have your own facilities to work with metal? Do you make all your own materials to make that gun? Do all your materials come from inside your state?

No you don't. The metal came from out of state or out of the nation as does most of the raw materials used to make things today. So since the materials came from somewhere other than right in your own backyard, the commerce clause can be used to regulate making that gun.

The metal doesn't appear out of thin air. Let's say that it is imported from another state. Congress certainly has the power to regulate the importation of this metal.

Congress may regulate the sale of the metal, since that importation is commerce among the states. Remember, congress has the power to regulate commerce (buying and selling) among the states. It doesn't have the power to regulate manufacturing (which is not commerce), nor does it have the power to regulate commerce inside a state.

Couldn't get past the first paragraph.

You can say that only regulates the materials but what you say isn't reality nor means anything.

What is reality and what does mean something is what the supreme court says and rules.

The supreme court has ruled over and over again that the commerce clause covers guns if they're made with materials outside the state or if they're sold outside the state.

Which in all products today, that applies because all product today aren't made in one place and the materials come from all over the world.

What I posted is the actual reality and law. What you posted isn't.

If it was that lady in California wouldn't be sitting in prison right now and all the courts she went to on appeal would have ruled in her favor including the supreme court.

Have fun living in your fantasy world. It's not real and you're only fooling yourself.

Yes you can compensate for your small penis. You just have to follow the rules and regulations set forth by our laws and constitution.

So compensate for your small penis all you want. Those of us who have working brain cells are laughing at you. Most women look at you and your words and their immediate belief is "small penis."

The pot gal broke federal laws against ...well pot. Imagine that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

Guy, you've obviously never served in the military. You assholes take up arms against the government, they will HAPPILY put you down, and most of the rest of the citizens will be cheering whent hey do it.

Yes if they think their little gun is a match for the largest, best equipped and most deadliest military on the face of this earth they're so far from reality it's not funny.

The minute they raise their gun to one of our military, they're dead.

None of this is about repelling or fighting our government.

ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT A SMALL PENIS.

They're compensating for a small penis. They believe if they have a big enough gun or a large amount of guns, that will compensate for their small penis and what they feel is the non ability to control their own lives.

JoeB and his idiotic friends seems to think the military is to defend the government. Fact is you numbnutted pukes, their oath is to defend the Constitution, not a tyrannical government.

 

[paulitician]

Another puppet President doing his part for the New World Order. Gotta disarm the populace. We have a traitor for a President. Anyone gettin that yet?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

JoeB and his idiotic friends seems to think the military is to defend the government. Fact is you numbnutted pukes, their oath is to defend the Constitution, not a tyrannical government.

Actually, the armed services guarding this nation are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

JoeB and his idiotic friends seems to think the military is to defend the government. Fact is you numbnutted pukes, their oath is to defend the Constitution, not a tyrannical government.

Actually, the armed services guarding this nation are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC!

That's what I said. But not in as many words.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

JoeB and his idiotic friends seems to think the military is to defend the government. Fact is you numbnutted pukes, their oath is to defend the Constitution, not a tyrannical government.

Actually, the armed services guarding this nation are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC!

That's what I said. But not in as many words.

OH, OK...I guess I don't follow Texas speak very well!

 

[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.

Tell that to the supreme court.

Unlike you, what they say and think actually does matter.

What you say and think doesn't and you can post whatever you want it won't make what you post true. It's been ruled by the supreme court over and over again that the government can regulate commerce.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

No, I do not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

[

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

Guy, you've obviously never served in the military. You assholes take up arms against the government, they will HAPPILY put you down, and most of the rest of the citizens will be cheering whent hey do it.

Yes if they think their little gun is a match for the largest, best equipped and most deadliest military on the face of this earth they're so far from reality it's not funny.

The minute they raise their gun to one of our military, they're dead.

None of this is about repelling or fighting our government.

ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT A SMALL PENIS.

They're compensating for a small penis. They believe if they have a big enough gun or a large amount of guns, that will compensate for their small penis and what they feel is the non ability to control their own lives.

The only small penis you need be concerned with is the one mounted upon your neck.

 

[Andylusion]

I hate libs, I hate cons. Libs and Cons are equal opportunity enablers.I stand by my last posts. How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction. SO, we NEED guns? How so? Wouldn't we have been better off keeping them out of the hands of those that were the threat to begin with?

Your problem is that you're using logic.

That never works with a man who has a small penis and feels he needs to compensate for it with a gun.

I know one group that loves your argument. A dozens guys in France, were very glad those French people didn't compensate for their small penis. I'm sure the families of the dead are comforted by the fact they at least didn't compensate.

You people seem to love helpless people dying. Pretty sick.

 

[The Rabbi]

I hate libs, I hate cons. Libs and Cons are equal opportunity enablers.I stand by my last posts. How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction. SO, we NEED guns? How so? Wouldn't we have been better off keeping them out of the hands of those that were the threat to begin with?

Your problem is that you're using logic.

That never works with a man who has a small penis and feels he needs to compensate for it with a gun.

I know one group that loves your argument. A dozens guys in France, were very glad those French people didn't compensate for their small penis. I'm sure the families of the dead are comforted by the fact they at least didn't compensate.

You people seem to love helpless people dying. Pretty sick.

Libs love dead victims. They arent so good on live heroes though.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I hate libs, I hate cons. Libs and Cons are equal opportunity enablers.I stand by my last posts. How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction. SO, we NEED guns? How so? Wouldn't we have been better off keeping them out of the hands of those that were the threat to begin with?

Your problem is that you're using logic.

That never works with a man who has a small penis and feels he needs to compensate for it with a gun.

I know one group that loves your argument. A dozens guys in France, were very glad those French people didn't compensate for their small penis. I'm sure the families of the dead are comforted by the fact they at least didn't compensate.

You people seem to love helpless people dying. Pretty sick.

Libs love dead victims.

Indeed. They fuel the Left's propaganda.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia.

No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't.

The people who wrote and ratified the BOR feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authority to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in this country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming miles away.

 

[Little-Acorn]

ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT A SMALL PENIS.

They're compensating for a small penis. They believe if they have a big enough gun or a large amount of guns, that will compensate for their small penis and what they feel is the non ability to control their own lives.

Have you noticed how many liberals, when they lose a debate, turn to examining people's penises?

They apparently have a strange obsession about other people's penises.

How sick are these liberals, exactly?

 

[Iceweasel]

ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT A SMALL PENIS.

They're compensating for a small penis. They believe if they have a big enough gun or a large amount of guns, that will compensate for their small penis and what they feel is the non ability to control their own lives.

Have you noticed how many liberals, when they lose a debate, turn to examining people's penises?

They apparently have a strange obsession about other people's penises.

How sick are these liberals, exactly?

They think it's a huge insult. Like most 7 year olds.

 

[JoeB131]

Congress has no authority to regulate firearms beyond interstate commerce. It is expressly forbidden by the Constitution from infringing in any way with the right itself.

The Constitution is the law. No law can supercede it, and all lesser law must respond to it, or be invalid. Only by the amendment process can it be altered.

Or we can just use the laws that already exist and actually enforce them. Nice thing about government, as much as you "compensate", theirs is always "bigger".

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia. Guns that aren't safe, guns that don't work properly etc etc aren't protected.
An individual can't have a nuclear weapon, for example. Why not? Because it's not a usual militia weapon and also it doesn't meet the requirements of what the militia is all about.

As long as individuals are able to own militia type weapons, then the govt hasn't done anything wrong. The limitation on power merely prevents the US govt stopping people being able to own arms, not stopping them owning ALL TYPES of arms.

The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but not to give the individuals the right to own EVERY type of weapon.

There is a fine line between what is and what isn't acceptable as a weapon, and who decides is based on what the govt says in the first place. That doesn't mean it's an open ended book.

Repeating your error won't make it true. The people have the right to bear arms, there's a 230 year discussion on why, only lately do post modern liberals think they've unveiled the real truth. The people tell the government what they want, Fuckhead, NOT the other way around!

I didn't say the people didn't have a right to bear arms. In fact I said people DO have a right to bear arms. So, me "repeating" my "error" is in fact you making stuff up about what I said.

What I did say was that the US govt has basically annulled 2A on this because they have simply made an "unorganized militia" and said that all men are in it (seems women don't give a stuff if they're in it or not) and therefore the US govt isn't taking away your right to bear arms.

The equivalent would be the US govt giving every male aged 18-45 a paper gun that doesn't fire, and then everyone being happy that they have a gun.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia.

No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't.

The people who wrote and ratified the BOR feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authority to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in this country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming miles away.

Guns that aren't safe, guns that don't work properly etc etc aren't protected.

Of course they are. Your sudden requirement for "safe" guns would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic.

The Framers made exceptions to their rules, written right into various amendments. I named several. But they were careful to write NO exceptions into the 2nd. You keep trying to pretend they did. Don't you get embarrassed defensing something that is so blatantly false?

No it isn't.

You forget the reason for the 2A.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was that it prevented the govt from doing things. Each of the things they chose to put in there were connected to politics.

Freedom of speech - so people could talk about politics
Freedom of religion - so politics wouldn't be controlled by religion.
Right to keep and bear arms - to the govt would fear the people and not go against the people

And so on.

The whole point was that individuals would have guns. Now, they made the amendment vague because they knew they couldn't predict the future, and they were right to do so.

You are suggesting that an individual should be able to have any weapon they choose, like nuclear arms, SAMs, tanks, F-15s, warheads and so on. This would be ridiculous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Specific:
View attachment 58878

Because in the UK where many people can't have guns, this happens all the time.......

 

[LeftofLeft]

You are of course wrong and stupid. If I know the person is prohibited it is a crime to sell to him.
How many criminals consider that when selling their guns?

How are you going to know if the person is prohibited?

Are there any other things that you aren't allowed to sell without meeting some kind of regulatory criteria? If so.......are all of these regulations infringements on your rights and to be ignored?

You either know or you dont. If you know the guy is a resident of another state then you cannot sell to him. If you know he just got out ofprison on a felony, you cannot sell to him. But if you dont know then you dont.
Yes, you cannot sell your prescription drugs to someone else.

You might benefit from the background check then. So you can be certain that you are selling to a person legally. If you said that, though, you'd be accused of being reasonable. Can't have that.

If you really want to do that you are free to go to a dealer and insist it be done through his books. No one is stopping you.
Next.

Nope. Not next. You've not made the case.

I'm bored to death from reading the same shit from the same people on this subject. You aren't an exception. I've exposed your failed logic.

Failed logic is the notion of pursuing gun control laws on the level and extremity that mirror Baltimore and Chicago and expect different results.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia.

No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't.

The people who wrote and ratified the BOR feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authority to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in this country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming miles away.

So you are effectively saying that Justice Scalia, the ubber "conservative" Supreme, erred in his opinion and got it all wrong in D. C. v. Heller, and you know what is right knowing more constitutional law and with a better grasp of it than Justice Scalia. Now where EXACTLY did Justice Scalia get it wrong when he wrote in his opinion the following;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Emphasis Added]

Of course you could double down on your error and claim SCOTUS has no power of Judicial Review, thereby denying over 200 years of the High Court's historical precedent and Hamilton's explanation of judicial review in Federalist #81 where he wrote;

A technical sense has been affixed to the term "appellate," which, in our law parlance, is commonly used in reference to appeals in the course of the civil law. But if I am not misinformed, the same meaning would not be given to it in any part of New England. There an appeal from one jury to another, is familiar both in language and practice, and is even a matter of course, until there have been two verdicts on one side. The word "appellate," therefore, will not be understood in the same sense in New England as in New York, which shows the impropriety of a technical interpretation derived from the jurisprudence of any particular State. The expression, taken in the abstract, denotes nothing more than the power of one tribunal to review the proceedings of another, either as to the law or fact, or both. [Emphasis Added]

So according to SCOTUS and the Constitution your assertion that, "No, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that govt should have NO SAY in deciding who should have guns and who shouldn't" is in gross error.