Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Slade3200]

You’re right BG checks don’t stop those people. If you think they are useless would you call for eliminating BG checks all together? Let anybody buy any gun from anywhere that wants to sell them?

I definitely would allow people to buy firearms without all the B.S. and background checks.

When you have unstable people, it's usually when they are young. You can identify them, rehabilitate them and there would be no pretext for gun control.

Everybody seems to know how many people are killed by guns in every little shithole from Angola to Zimbabwe, but I'll bet that NONE of them know how other countries deal with unruly kids.

Here, we blame the kid, feed them pills, let the police parent them, and then bitch about it when the kid grows up to be a killer.

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

A determined killer can take an automobile and plow into a crowd and kill a lot of people in minutes. When I was a kid, In Ireland guns were tightly controlled, but the IRA / Sein Fein was able to wage some really bloody battles - many times with improvised explosives.

The people you're talking about could ALL have been identified and dealt with long before a gun could come into play.

Yes people can kill in many other ways. I don’t see what that has to do with regulating the quickest and most efficient killing tools we have so dangerous people don’t have easy access to them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

We already have background checks for weapons purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show. We have had killers who did pass the background check and still used those weapons for mass murders.

Your right it’s not a full proof system, some get through. Would you do away with the background check system we have or do you think it is doing some good?

Half and half on that.

Are they stopping people not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one at a dealer? Yes they are. Are they stopping people who are not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one elsewhere? No it doesn't.

Go to your pharmacist and ask for a bottle of Oxycontin, and he refuses to sell it to you without a prescription. Go to the street and it's ready available.

The question is, did you solve anything by forcing the addict to buy from the street instead of the drug store? No you didn't. Did you stop all law abiding citizens? Yes you did.

So let's say a evil or twisted person wants to commit a mass murder. Do you really think that the inability to buy a firearm at a dealer will make him say "Oh well, I guess I can't do it now!"

London is trying to institute a law that stops people from carrying knives outside of their home. Why? Because knife killings surpassed murders in New York City even with the available guns.

It's the old cliche. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take a nice middle-class suburb, and create a law that all households must have at least one firearm, you won't change the crime statics one bit. Create a law in lower income neighborhoods that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, the same thing. You won't change the crime statistics one bit.

Some might go find a dealer and get Oxy and others won’t... it’s the others that make a difference in this discussion. The ones that don’t. And with guns unlike drugs, they are literally made as a tool to harm others. So more reason to be more careful

That's funny. Even legal drugs have killed more people than guns.

So what? Cars and cancer has as well. What’s your point?

We already have background checks for weapons purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show. We have had killers who did pass the background check and still used those weapons for mass murders.

Your right it’s not a full proof system, some get through. Would you do away with the background check system we have or do you think it is doing some good?

Half and half on that.

Are they stopping people not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one at a dealer? Yes they are. Are they stopping people who are not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one elsewhere? No it doesn't.

Go to your pharmacist and ask for a bottle of Oxycontin, and he refuses to sell it to you without a prescription. Go to the street and it's ready available.

The question is, did you solve anything by forcing the addict to buy from the street instead of the drug store? No you didn't. Did you stop all law abiding citizens? Yes you did.

So let's say a evil or twisted person wants to commit a mass murder. Do you really think that the inability to buy a firearm at a dealer will make him say "Oh well, I guess I can't do it now!"

London is trying to institute a law that stops people from carrying knives outside of their home. Why? Because knife killings surpassed murders in New York City even with the available guns.

It's the old cliche. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take a nice middle-class suburb, and create a law that all households must have at least one firearm, you won't change the crime statics one bit. Create a law in lower income neighborhoods that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, the same thing. You won't change the crime statistics one bit.

Some might go find a dealer and get Oxy and others won’t... it’s the others that make a difference in this discussion. The ones that don’t. And with guns unlike drugs, they are literally made as a tool to harm others. So more reason to be more careful

That's funny. Even legal drugs have killed more people than guns.

So what? Cars and cancer has as well. What’s your point?

My point? Firearms should not be singled out nor feared any more than drugs, alcohol. If society can accept the carnage of people that die in a DUI, they can accept the fact that some people are going to die by firearm related deaths.

Then again, I'm the only swinging Richard here willing to find an alternative to gun control and save lives.

 

[Blues Man]

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

They are not. Anyone can own a car.

The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.

But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.

I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?

.

You should support gun safety, we all should. How do you support it and promote more people to partake?

Anyone who wants to learn gun safety can take some of excellent courses offered by the NRA

MAybe we should force everyone to take gun safety courses

There ya go... kinda like getting a drivers license huh?

But I was being facetious

I guess I need a sarcasm sign when dealing with you

 

[Blues Man]

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

No kid can buy a handgun now


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I was talking about a college kid but but as you said young kids can’t buy now.. thank god. A good law that’s not covered in the constitution wouldn’t you agree?

I have no problem with anyone who has not reached the age of majority being denied access to anything

Never have

But that has nothing to do with what adults should be able to do.

You’re right but it does have to do with what we consider constitutional or not.

If you think it's not then bring a case through the federal courts all the way to the top.

 

[Blues Man]

Owning a car is not a Right. Democrats used Poll Taxes to charge a fee against Blacks for the Right to vote, and it was struck down under the 14th Amendment.

Murdock v Pennsylvania states that you can't be charged a fee to exercise a Right...

That is why licensing gun owners is unConstitutional.

Im so tired of the knee jerk reaction “driving isn’t a right” retort. that has nothing to do with his point which was regarding the effects of licensing and registration

It has everything to do with the point...... and if licensing was such a fix for cars, why do they kill 38,000 people?

Registration does nothing for guns...other than allow politicians to confiscate them...which we have seen all over the world.

Cars kill 38,000 people because they are dangerous. Wanna make an educated guess which way that number would go if there were no regulations? No seat belt laws, no licensing requirements, no speed limits

You mean the speed limits that are not enforced ?

Imagine how how many more wouldn't die in car accidents if all the traffic laws were properly enforced.

As bad as we are at not enforcing traffic laws we are orders of magnitude worse in not enforcing the thousands of gun laws we already have on the books

You’re right enforcement helps. Imagine how many more people would be dead if we had no laws or regulations.

If the laws we have are not enforced then how is that different from having no laws?

 

[Blues Man]

I definitely would allow people to buy firearms without all the B.S. and background checks.

When you have unstable people, it's usually when they are young. You can identify them, rehabilitate them and there would be no pretext for gun control.

Everybody seems to know how many people are killed by guns in every little shithole from Angola to Zimbabwe, but I'll bet that NONE of them know how other countries deal with unruly kids.

Here, we blame the kid, feed them pills, let the police parent them, and then bitch about it when the kid grows up to be a killer.

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

But you can drive into one and kill them quickly...

Remember OKC and remember take guns away lunatics will find other ways to kill either with trucks or box cutters...

That would be excellent. I’d much rather face a guy with a box cutter over a gun. Wouldn’t you?

If a guy came at me with a box cutter i;d rather have a gun because I don't want any fight for my safety to be even. In fact I want it to be so lopsided that the person who would want to threaten me would be an idiot to want to try

 

[Blues Man]

A person can avoid the background checks and other laws by going through the straw purchase process or buying a stolen firearm off the black market...

Take the Cop shooter that had a record and laws already prevented him from owning a gun, so what new law would have stopped him?

How about Sandy Hook and the fact the mother owned the firearms and was killed, so again what law would have prevented the killings?

How about the Santa Fe, Texas shootings and again what law would have prevented that shooting?

Too many times I read how we need stricter gun control laws but you have laws already that do nothing, so tell me how will those background checks stop the next thug from shooting up a school are trying to kill our kids?

Yes understood. People can get through the holes in the net if they put in the extra effort, but others will get caught in the net. Never said anything was full proof.

Little extra effort?

There is no effort to go around the law...

Straw purchasing is already against the law, so how will you prevent that?

I won’t prevent that. It will still happen. We just support law enforcement to catch those guys

So the laws you want to pass will not stop the Next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Cop shooters, so tell me what is the point passing the law again?

Hell the Orlando Nightclub shooting could have been prevented had the agencies done their job, but alas they did not so will more laws make them do their job?

How do you know laws won’t and haven’t stopped any shootings? How many straw buyers have been busted. How many people with illegal firearms have been arrested and had the guns confiscated? How do you know that they wouldn’t have killed with those weapons had they not been arrested? Without laws and regulations those people would all still be on the streets locked and loaded.

How do you bust a straw buyer if he can legally pass any and all background checks?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I definitely would allow people to buy firearms without all the B.S. and background checks.

When you have unstable people, it's usually when they are young. You can identify them, rehabilitate them and there would be no pretext for gun control.

Everybody seems to know how many people are killed by guns in every little shithole from Angola to Zimbabwe, but I'll bet that NONE of them know how other countries deal with unruly kids.

Here, we blame the kid, feed them pills, let the police parent them, and then bitch about it when the kid grows up to be a killer.

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

A determined killer can take an automobile and plow into a crowd and kill a lot of people in minutes. When I was a kid, In Ireland guns were tightly controlled, but the IRA / Sein Fein was able to wage some really bloody battles - many times with improvised explosives.

The people you're talking about could ALL have been identified and dealt with long before a gun could come into play.

Yes people can kill in many other ways. I don’t see what that has to do with regulating the quickest and most efficient killing tools we have so dangerous people don’t have easy access to them.

You don't have the constitutional authority to infringe on unalienable Rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A person can avoid the background checks and other laws by going through the straw purchase process or buying a stolen firearm off the black market...

Take the Cop shooter that had a record and laws already prevented him from owning a gun, so what new law would have stopped him?

How about Sandy Hook and the fact the mother owned the firearms and was killed, so again what law would have prevented the killings?

How about the Santa Fe, Texas shootings and again what law would have prevented that shooting?

Too many times I read how we need stricter gun control laws but you have laws already that do nothing, so tell me how will those background checks stop the next thug from shooting up a school are trying to kill our kids?

Yes understood. People can get through the holes in the net if they put in the extra effort, but others will get caught in the net. Never said anything was full proof.

Little extra effort?

There is no effort to go around the law...

Straw purchasing is already against the law, so how will you prevent that?

I won’t prevent that. It will still happen. We just support law enforcement to catch those guys

So the laws you want to pass will not stop the Next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Cop shooters, so tell me what is the point passing the law again?

Hell the Orlando Nightclub shooting could have been prevented had the agencies done their job, but alas they did not so will more laws make them do their job?

How do you know laws won’t and haven’t stopped any shootings? How many straw buyers have been busted. How many people with illegal firearms have been arrested and had the guns confiscated? How do you know that they wouldn’t have killed with those weapons had they not been arrested? Without laws and regulations those people would all still be on the streets locked and loaded.

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

 

[Slade3200]

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

They are not. Anyone can own a car.

The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.

But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.

I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?

.

You should support gun safety, we all should. How do you support it and promote more people to partake?

Anyone who wants to learn gun safety can take some of excellent courses offered by the NRA

MAybe we should force everyone to take gun safety courses

There ya go... kinda like getting a drivers license huh?

But I was being facetious

I guess I need a sarcasm sign when dealing with you

You have better ideas when you’re sarcastic

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yes understood. People can get through the holes in the net if they put in the extra effort, but others will get caught in the net. Never said anything was full proof.

Little extra effort?

There is no effort to go around the law...

Straw purchasing is already against the law, so how will you prevent that?

I won’t prevent that. It will still happen. We just support law enforcement to catch those guys

So the laws you want to pass will not stop the Next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Cop shooters, so tell me what is the point passing the law again?

Hell the Orlando Nightclub shooting could have been prevented had the agencies done their job, but alas they did not so will more laws make them do their job?

How do you know laws won’t and haven’t stopped any shootings? How many straw buyers have been busted. How many people with illegal firearms have been arrested and had the guns confiscated? How do you know that they wouldn’t have killed with those weapons had they not been arrested? Without laws and regulations those people would all still be on the streets locked and loaded.

How do you bust a straw buyer if he can legally pass any and all background checks?

NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION - the precursor to confiscation as Trump and the Dems want it.

 

[Slade3200]

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

No kid can buy a handgun now


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I was talking about a college kid but but as you said young kids can’t buy now.. thank god. A good law that’s not covered in the constitution wouldn’t you agree?

I have no problem with anyone who has not reached the age of majority being denied access to anything

Never have

But that has nothing to do with what adults should be able to do.

You’re right but it does have to do with what we consider constitutional or not.

If you think it's not then bring a case through the federal courts all the way to the top.

It’s clearly not in the constitution which is the argument the hardliners use to say all gun laws are illegal. But it has been brought through the courts and gun regulations have been deemed legal.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

But you can drive into one and kill them quickly...

Remember OKC and remember take guns away lunatics will find other ways to kill either with trucks or box cutters...

That would be excellent. I’d much rather face a guy with a box cutter over a gun. Wouldn’t you?

If a guy came at me with a box cutter i;d rather have a gun because I don't want any fight for my safety to be even. In fact I want it to be so lopsided that the person who would want to threaten me would be an idiot to want to try

That’s great, you should have Gun of you are responsible citizen trying to defend yourself. I’d rather the crazy dude have a box cutter rather than a gun. Wouldn’t you?

 

[Slade3200]

Yes understood. People can get through the holes in the net if they put in the extra effort, but others will get caught in the net. Never said anything was full proof.

Little extra effort?

There is no effort to go around the law...

Straw purchasing is already against the law, so how will you prevent that?

I won’t prevent that. It will still happen. We just support law enforcement to catch those guys

So the laws you want to pass will not stop the Next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Cop shooters, so tell me what is the point passing the law again?

Hell the Orlando Nightclub shooting could have been prevented had the agencies done their job, but alas they did not so will more laws make them do their job?

How do you know laws won’t and haven’t stopped any shootings? How many straw buyers have been busted. How many people with illegal firearms have been arrested and had the guns confiscated? How do you know that they wouldn’t have killed with those weapons had they not been arrested? Without laws and regulations those people would all still be on the streets locked and loaded.

How do you bust a straw buyer if he can legally pass any and all background checks?

There is one being arrested right now for the Dayton shooting. Straw buyers get busted all the time.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

A determined killer can take an automobile and plow into a crowd and kill a lot of people in minutes. When I was a kid, In Ireland guns were tightly controlled, but the IRA / Sein Fein was able to wage some really bloody battles - many times with improvised explosives.

The people you're talking about could ALL have been identified and dealt with long before a gun could come into play.

Yes people can kill in many other ways. I don’t see what that has to do with regulating the quickest and most efficient killing tools we have so dangerous people don’t have easy access to them.

You don't have the constitutional authority to infringe on unalienable Rights.

Our law makers and Supreme Court disagrees.

And the fact that you think it constitutionally illegal to restrict stores from selling an uzi to a 12 year old is just laughable. You aren’t going to win that argument.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

A determined killer can take an automobile and plow into a crowd and kill a lot of people in minutes. When I was a kid, In Ireland guns were tightly controlled, but the IRA / Sein Fein was able to wage some really bloody battles - many times with improvised explosives.

The people you're talking about could ALL have been identified and dealt with long before a gun could come into play.

Yes people can kill in many other ways. I don’t see what that has to do with regulating the quickest and most efficient killing tools we have so dangerous people don’t have easy access to them.

You don't have the constitutional authority to infringe on unalienable Rights.

Our law makers and Supreme Court disagrees.

And the fact that you think it constitutionally illegal to restrict stores from selling an uzi to a 12 year old is just laughable. You aren’t going to win that argument.

I never made that argument. A 12 year old is a minor. Try again. Do you realize that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with my position because they ILLEGALLY stole your Rights? Check this out:

Stolen Rights

Read that an YOU would disagree with the high Court.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No kid can buy a handgun now


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I was talking about a college kid but but as you said young kids can’t buy now.. thank god. A good law that’s not covered in the constitution wouldn’t you agree?

I have no problem with anyone who has not reached the age of majority being denied access to anything

Never have

But that has nothing to do with what adults should be able to do.

You’re right but it does have to do with what we consider constitutional or not.

If you think it's not then bring a case through the federal courts all the way to the top.

It’s clearly not in the constitution which is the argument the hardliners use to say all gun laws are illegal. But it has been brought through the courts and gun regulations have been deemed legal.

Time for a legal lesson:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The gun laws on the books today are a result of a combination of the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench (and there is NO constitutional authority to allow that.) The other part of the equation is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. If that Amendment didn't exist, the anti - immigrants couldn't wail about so called "anchor babies" either, BTW. See this:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

14th amendment ... illegally passed and ratified? | Post War History, The Reconstruction Period

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Supreme Law Library : Authors : Howard Freeman : freeman4

Stolen Rights

 

[Leo123]

I dont remember if I asked you earlier... do you consider it unconstitutional to restrict a business from selling an uzi to a 12 year old?

Well, if that 12-year old can get an abortion and KILL a developing human being, I guess ya might as well give 'em an UZI......After all you have already taught the little pin head that killing is OK and humans are killing the Earth anyway. Add to that, government condoning gender confusion along with supporting fatherless families. Maybe we should ALL own UZIs because when the Neo-Marxist Democrats take over we are all in danger.

 

[Slade3200]

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

A determined killer can take an automobile and plow into a crowd and kill a lot of people in minutes. When I was a kid, In Ireland guns were tightly controlled, but the IRA / Sein Fein was able to wage some really bloody battles - many times with improvised explosives.

The people you're talking about could ALL have been identified and dealt with long before a gun could come into play.

Yes people can kill in many other ways. I don’t see what that has to do with regulating the quickest and most efficient killing tools we have so dangerous people don’t have easy access to them.

You don't have the constitutional authority to infringe on unalienable Rights.

Our law makers and Supreme Court disagrees.

And the fact that you think it constitutionally illegal to restrict stores from selling an uzi to a 12 year old is just laughable. You aren’t going to win that argument.

I never made that argument. A 12 year old is a minor. Try again. Do you realize that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with my position because they ILLEGALLY stole your Rights? Check this out:

Stolen Rights

Read that an YOU would disagree with the high Court.

Where in the constitution does it say what age a minor is or for that matter where does it say that the god given inalienable right of owning a firearm may be infringed on 12 year olds?

 

[Slade3200]

I was talking about a college kid but but as you said young kids can’t buy now.. thank god. A good law that’s not covered in the constitution wouldn’t you agree?

I have no problem with anyone who has not reached the age of majority being denied access to anything

Never have

But that has nothing to do with what adults should be able to do.

You’re right but it does have to do with what we consider constitutional or not.

If you think it's not then bring a case through the federal courts all the way to the top.

It’s clearly not in the constitution which is the argument the hardliners use to say all gun laws are illegal. But it has been brought through the courts and gun regulations have been deemed legal.

Time for a legal lesson:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The gun laws on the books today are a result of a combination of the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench (and there is NO constitutional authority to allow that.) The other part of the equation is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. If that Amendment didn't exist, the anti - immigrants couldn't wail about so called "anchor babies" either, BTW. See this:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

14th amendment ... illegally passed and ratified? | Post War History, The Reconstruction Period

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Supreme Law Library : Authors : Howard Freeman : freeman4

Stolen Rights

How does the constitution define the legal process to appeal or deliberate whether a law is constitutional or not?