Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[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.

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 had to buy the parts or the materials to make those parts.

Not all the materials will come from where you live. Especially the metal since reagan destroyed our metal manufacturing industry in the 80s. Most metal now comes from China.

You have to make sure nothing you used came from another state or nation which is nearly impossible to do now. Everything is made in different places now and it's nearly impossible to find something that's is 100% made in one place.

Even the food you eat came from somewhere else and can be regulated by the government. Your sugar probably came from either Hawaii or California, your flour probably came from a state in the midwest. Your meat probably came from a neighboring state.

Nothing is 100% made in one place anymore. Which means just about anything can be regulated if it's bought and sold.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"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.

many states have adopted the firearms freedom act

in defiance of an over reaching federal government

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

 

[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?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

They're hiding in your closet.
BOO!

 

[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 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.

Leave it to you to lie.

I never said that the commerce clause gives the government unlimited powers.

I said it give the government the power to regulate commerce. Which selling a gun is commerce.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to one word you have to say?

 

[Dana7360]

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.

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.

 

[Flash]

[


Leave it to you to lie.

I never said that the commerce clause gives the government unlimited powers.

I said it give the government the power to regulate commerce. Which selling a gun is commerce.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to one word you have to say?

The Commerce Clause has been used by the Federal bureaucrats to expand the power of the Federal government and to circumvent states rights and that is despicable.

Just because Hitler had a law on the books that gave him the authority to build death camps doesn't mean it was right.

This filthy ass Federal government of ours is totally out of control and stupid laws like the Commerce Clause is one of the reasons.

 

[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.

Leave it to you to lie.

I never said that the commerce clause gives the government unlimited powers.

I said it give the government the power to regulate commerce. Which selling a gun is commerce.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to one word you have to say?

No, you implied it by parroting the line over and over as if it meant something. Now we see it didn't.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

LOL, you trying to think is almost cute. When did I say background checks are unconstitutional or illegal?

 

[OKTexas]

The guy that bought the rifles for the San Bernardino shooters passed the background check and in reality there was no need for him to buy them, the shooter could have bought them on his own and passed the check.

That just proves guns are too easy to get. Thank you for making my point.

CA already has everything in place your dear leader wants to do nationally, San Bernardino proves just the opposite, those policies won't stop jack shit. If criminals are determined to buy a gun they will find a way to get them.

 

[OKTexas]

Of course hardened cockpits has nothing to do with that.

I wouldn't know. Have we ever had a case since 9/11 where the terrorist GOT on the plane and then was foiled by the hardened cockpit?

Or did they never get on the plane at all because we are checking them out before they get on the plane?

They got on the planes, at least two have tried to detonate bombs, one in a shoe the other in his underwear. So much for the effectiveness of the no fly list, they just find someone that's not on it. Why do you keep making these same ineffective bullshit arguments for more ineffective policies? Of course if you applied the same logic you use to planes that you attempt to use on guns, no one would be allowed to fly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"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.

Actually the Commerce clause ONLY applies to interstate transactions. I guess you forgot to actually read the Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wow the most ignorant post to date. Congratulations.
The Thompson was an expensive gun. So average criminals didnt own one. I think Dillinger did and was quite proud of it. It was hardly a problem. Slow firing, inaccurate and heavy as hell. I've fired one.
There is no high fire rate in mass shootings. All of them were semi autos, that fired as fast as someone could pull the trigger and cycle the gun.
It is a magaine, not a "clip", hair boy.
Guns and magazines have a service life of about 100 years. So the 300M in circulation arent going away soon.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You're assuming the military will violate their oath like a politician does, don't bet you life on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

What state?

In Virginia, I had an hour's class time, one-time range qual. Class cost $50.00, CC permit cost $50.00. Five year renewals cost $50.00. No permit necessary to buy.

Both nearby DC and Maryland, strong gun control regions, recently had a per capita gun crime rate five times that of Virginia. That rate may have changed with the Heller ruling. Since pro-2A forces have won this war, I don't pay too much attention to stats anymore.

Anyway, sounds like your state makes exercising your right a government cash cow. You really should complain.

and Virginia is where crooks in NY and Maryland get most of their guns.

Not to mention guys like Cho who had no business getting a gun.

So why isnt the rate of gun violence higher in VA than it is in MD and NY?

 

[The Rabbi]

"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.

We know you're an ignoramus.
It's the "interstate commerce clause." Sales between individuals by defintion are not interstate. Ergo Congress or the president should have no power to regulate them.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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 had to buy the parts or the materials to make those parts.

Not all the materials will come from where you live. Especially the metal since reagan destroyed our metal manufacturing industry in the 80s. Most metal now comes from China.

You have to make sure nothing you used came from another state or nation which is nearly impossible to do now. Everything is made in different places now and it's nearly impossible to find something that's is 100% made in one place.

Even the food you eat came from somewhere else and can be regulated by the government. Your sugar probably came from either Hawaii or California, your flour probably came from a state in the midwest. Your meat probably came from a neighboring state.

Nothing is 100% made in one place anymore. Which means just about anything can be regulated if it's bought and sold.

First your assertion that Reagan destroyed our metal industry is absurd. You clearly know nothing about it.
Second, based onyour reasoning there is nothing the federal government could not regulate. That violates the principle of limited enumerated powers of the federal govt.

 

[Muhammed]

"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?
.

I don't like your background. So fuck you.

 

[The Rabbi]

"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.

Leave it to you to lie.

I never said that the commerce clause gives the government unlimited powers.

I said it give the government the power to regulate commerce. Which selling a gun is commerce.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to one word you have to say?

Since you maintain that all commerce is interstate then logically you maintain that gov't can regulate any and all commerce. That is a violation of the principle of limited government.
You lose.