Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

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.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Where did I suggest locking them up?

NO, you suggested "disappearing them", which is kind of fucked up. I was trying to have a rational conversation with you on the subject, because a government that 'disappears' people isn't going to be one that is going to want a bunch of guys out there with guns compensating for their tiny peckers.

If you are a violent criminal with a history, you get a low caliber round under the left ear. Much more humane than current methods. Just like flipping a switch.

There is little reason to keep such people alive and support them for years.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

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.

Yep, military personnel swear in to the Constitution as well. They won't be confiscating guns. Nor cops. I've been a long time member on a cop forum and it's universal that they won't participate in anything like that. I can see small skirmishes here and there if liberals gain too much power, this is what they are really afraid of.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Indeed. No system will ever be perfect, and Cho was a known whack-job who wasn't reported. Privacy laws, ya know. Can't point out the crazies.

No, the problem with Cho is that the gun dealers didn't look into him.

It took the Media less than a few hours to find out this guy had a history of anti-social behavior going back to junior high school. And yet he was STILL able to buy two guns, one of them by mail-order.

Which is why I have my perfect solution. If you sold or manufacture a gun used in a crime, you can be sued by the victims.

It's how we got the tobacco industry to clean up its act.

His behavior was not reported. No one knew until they dug up a few rocks.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

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.

Yep, military personnel swear in to the Constitution as well. They won't be confiscating guns. Nor cops. I've been a long time member on a cop forum and it's universal that they won't participate in anything like that. I can see small skirmishes here and there if liberals gain too much power, this is what they are really afraid of.

Whenever the people stand up to these American-born foreigners, they invariably back down. I would not expect any major problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

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.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

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.

Yep, military personnel swear in to the Constitution as well. They won't be confiscating guns. Nor cops. I've been a long time member on a cop forum and it's universal that they won't participate in anything like that. I can see small skirmishes here and there if liberals gain too much power, this is what they are really afraid of.

It depends what Obama suggests. Remember, he can't go against the Constitution. So, any gun law is not going to be taking away guns. However carrying guns is where he might have his best chance of having an impact.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

You are free to believe any fantasy you like.

BTW, the number of privately owned firearms in the US is approaching 350,000,000, thanks to Obama's marvelous salesmanship. In 2009, it was approximately 200,000,000. Obama may well have doubled that number, or more, by the time he leaves office.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

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.

Yep, military personnel swear in to the Constitution as well. They won't be confiscating guns. Nor cops. I've been a long time member on a cop forum and it's universal that they won't participate in anything like that. I can see small skirmishes here and there if liberals gain too much power, this is what they are really afraid of.

It depends what Obama suggests. Remember, he can't go against the Constitution. So, any gun law is not going to be taking away guns. However carrying guns is where he might have his best chance of having an impact.

Carrying guns is up to the state, and he doesn't appear to have any problem going against the Constitution. The point though is it will be purely political for purely political motives. Almost all of the shooting sprees (maybe all?) were with legally acquired weapons from dealers. Thug/gansta stuff, not so much. And they won't care about any new laws.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

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.

Yep, military personnel swear in to the Constitution as well. They won't be confiscating guns. Nor cops. I've been a long time member on a cop forum and it's universal that they won't participate in anything like that. I can see small skirmishes here and there if liberals gain too much power, this is what they are really afraid of.

It depends what Obama suggests. Remember, he can't go against the Constitution. So, any gun law is not going to be taking away guns. However carrying guns is where he might have his best chance of having an impact.

Carrying guns is up to the state, and he doesn't appear to have any problem going against the Constitution. The point though is it will be purely political for purely political motives. Almost all of the shooting sprees (maybe all?) were with legally acquired weapons from dealers. Thug/gansta stuff, not so much. And they won't care about any new laws.

Well I'm not arguing that taking guns away is going to actually do anything. I think the country needs to reform itself first, get politics back to being about the people, with education for the people, social problems being tackled, and making the country a better place to grow up in. Getting rid of guns won't change the reason many people end up killing others in the first place.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

You are free to believe any fantasy you like.

BTW, the number of privately owned firearms in the US is approaching 350,000,000, thanks to Obama's marvelous salesmanship. In 2009, it was approximately 200,000,000. Obama may well have doubled that number, or more, by the time he leaves office.

It's not fantasy, however I don't know the statistics, and you didn't present them.

However, it wasn't Obama that did the selling, it was the fear mongers who did that.

 

[Iceweasel]

However, it wasn't Obama that did the selling, it was the fear mongers who did that.

Who are the fear mongers that everyone listened to?

 

[Flash]

"

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.ing background checks --

Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

There are two things wrong with background checks.

The first thing is simply that they will do nothing to stop crime. Background checks will be just as worthless at stopping a crook from getting a gun for criminal purposes as drug laws are worthless for stopping the illegal use of drugs.

The second reason is much more important. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Heller ruling settled that discussion. The process of background checks is having to get permission from the government to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

If we have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right that is assured by the Constitution then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it? Our Constitutional Republic is worthless, isn't it?

 

[Dana7360]

"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_human_being]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?

Fetuses aren't people.

 

[Dana7360]

"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.

 

[Dana7360]

"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.

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

"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 doesn't give unlimited powers to the government. if it did we wouldn't need the rest of the constitution. Liberals trot it out like it was carte blanche.

 

[martybegan]

"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.

So an implied ability overrides an explicit restriction? I guess you follow the progressive mantra of "expand the constitution where it suits me, ignore it where I disagree with it."

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

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.