Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[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.

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?

 

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

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

Manufacturing a firearm is not commerce.

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

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

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.

It's already been ruled by the supreme court in a case in California involving a woman who baked marijuana brownies for cancer patients. She didn't even sell them. She just made them and gave them away to patients.

She was busted and prosecuted. She appealed and it went all the way to the supreme court. The court ruled that according to the commerce clause the federal government can regulate her and she went to prison.

Her flour, sugar, chocolate and other ingredients she used to make those brownies came from other states. So the federal government had the right to regulate her and make what she did very illegal. So off to prison she went and as far as I know, she's still there. This happened in the bush boy years.

 

[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 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.

 

[PredFan]

"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?
.

Gun shows do not have an exemption, that is a myth. You cannot buy a gun at a gun show from a dealer without a background check. A private citizen can sell a gun anywhere he or she wants to. It is their right to do so. Many choose to at gun shows but they are selling one gun, or trading a gun for another. It is not a loophole, it is a right.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Specific:

 

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

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

Manufacturing a firearm is not commerce.

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

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

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.

It's already been ruled by the supreme court in a case in California involving a woman who baked marijuana brownies for cancer patients. She didn't even sell them. She just made them and gave them away to patients.

She was busted and prosecuted. She appealed and it went all the way to the supreme court. The court ruled that according to the commerce clause the federal government can regulate her and she went to prison.

Her flour, sugar, chocolate and other ingredients she used to make those brownies came from other states. So the federal government had the right to regulate her and make what she did very illegal. So off to prison she went and as far as I know, she's still there. This happened in the bush boy years.

Because of federal laws against pot. I doubt your SCOTUS angle, it doesn't make sense. If the product wasn't legal the government can't very well regulate the ingredients.

 

[PredFan]

"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 disagree and my reasons are that most of Americans are ignorant and we need not be ruled by mob rule. These people do not understand the current situation and just like you, they are confused about the non-existent "gun show exemption".

The other way I disagree is that the gun control laws will not stop any crime or save any life. This isn't about that, it's about control over Americans. If anyone in the government was serious about saving lives, they would look at WHY we kill, and not "how".

 

[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 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 thing 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 one has to take some shrill asshole on the internet seriously. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[paulitician]

The NWO Globalist Elites will continue trying to disarm Americans. They've succeeded in disarming much of the world's populace. America is their final obstacle. So no matter what compromise you make with them, they're only gonna demand more.

It's about a complete disarming of the populace. They're not going away. So we're now at the point where there is no more room for compromise. Americans will have to fight for their Constitutional rights. It's as simple as that.

 

[Centinel]

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.

 

[Dana7360]

Why do pro gun people shut down their cerebrum on this ? The Constitution WAS written during an era of primitive gun technology, the same way freedom of speech was written in an era of printing press and not the internet, So we get terrorism on the dark net buying guns legally and creating suicide cells, I somehow don't think Jefferson and Co, would have approved ANY of that as an extension of "freedom".

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Who 's sacrificing ...A gun is a piece of metal, And I will be DAMNED if I NEED a gun just to live in this country, don't you people get it?

This has not been about personal protection or fighting off an invading army for a very long time.

This is about and will always be about men with a small penis who are over compensating for that small penis.

Just shake your head and walk away. Nothing of what they say is based on reality.

The supreme court has ruled over and over again the commerce clause does apply to weapons and the government most certainly can regulate weapons under it.

Just remember every word they're saying is really saying " I HAVE SUCH A SMALL PENIS I MUST COMPENSATE FOR IT WITH A GUN."

 

[Dana7360]

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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why do pro gun people shut down their cerebrum on this ? The Constitution WAS written during an era of primitive gun technology, the same way freedom of speech was written in an era of printing press and not the internet, So we get terrorism on the dark net buying guns legally and creating suicide cells, I somehow don't think Jefferson and Co, would have approved ANY of that as an extension of "freedom".

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Who 's sacrificing ...A gun is a piece of metal, And I will be DAMNED if I NEED a gun just to live in this country, don't you people get it?

This has not been about personal protection or fighting off an invading army for a very long time.

This is about and will always be about men with a small penis who are over compensating for that small penis.

Just shake your head and walk away. Nothing of what they say is based on reality.

The supreme court has ruled over and over again the commerce clause does apply to weapons and the government most certainly can regulate weapons under it.

Just remember every word they're saying is really saying " I HAVE SUCH A SMALL PENIS I MUST COMPENSATE FOR IT WITH A GUN."

Gee.. how well thought out.

 

[Dana7360]

[

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

This has not been about personal protection or fighting off an invading army for a very long time.

This is about and will always be about men with a small penis who are over compensating for that small penis.

Just shake your head and walk away. Nothing of what they say is based on reality.

The supreme court has ruled over and over again the commerce clause does apply to weapons and the government most certainly can regulate weapons under it.

Just remember every word they're saying is really saying " I HAVE SUCH A SMALL PENIS I MUST COMPENSATE FOR IT WITH A GUN."

No, you have such a small brain, hollowed out by pot use, that you have to lie about people. The founders were concerned about tyranny and said so many times. And personal protection. Government does not have unlimited powers and you prove just why we need to keep it in check.

 

[Iceweasel]

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 military won't go against the people. Cops won't confiscate the guns. ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT SMALL LIBERAL BRAINS.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.

I KNOW precisely what the final clause of Article I, Section 8 says within its constitutional context. YOU are the one distorting the matter. Its meaning is EMPHASIZED below, made redundant by your ignorance, and this time pay attention to the context of the BOLD portion that says FOREGOING POWERS, dipstick, which would be the preceding 17 clauses, the other enumerated powers of Congress along with;

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

Regarding the commerce clause, you wrote this in your former response to me, IDIOT;

Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Given your first sentence deals with INTRASTATE commerce, but I made no mention of that (commerce within the borders of a given State), hence that response to your irrational reply. Regarding your second sentence, WTF does that have to do with what I had posted to that point, IDIOT? And read up on when a commodity or goods become interstate commerce...see Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.

Rabbi, you're a gold plated IDIOT!
I NEVER represented that the necessary and proper clause had any other powers that it had when the Constitution was ratified. But you, on the other hand, never wanted to say what that clause actually meant. Now suddenly, YOU ARE THE ONE AGREEING WITH ME AFTER I HAD TO POST THE CLAUSE VERBATIM TO YOU TWO FREAKIN' TIMES! It finally took the second time.

If what you say is true, and Carter v. Carter Coal Co. doesn't mean what I think it means, FIRST tell me what YOU think I think it means and SECOND what its relevance is to our discussion. That's not a trick question at all if you've actually read the case in the 11 minutes between my post mentioning it and your response and understood it in the context of our "talks". Will you respond to this or go into your usual dance to shift the narrative away from your perfidy?

You're obviously insane.

Just what I thought...you danced away from your bullshit lies so you didn't have to respond to another post you can't comprehend! You know nothing about that case and its relevance to what was being discussed!

I know you're insane. bye

 

[Dana7360]

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."

 

[paulitician]

If Gun Owners continue compromising, they're gonna compromise themselves into a complete ban on firearms. The NWO Global Elites aren't going away. They will continue on with their disarming the populace agenda. They'll continue to demand more.

Each 'compromise' is just another nail in the coffin for the 2nd Amendment. Americans better be preapred to fight for their rights. Because it is gonna be a long struggle.

 

[Centinel]

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.

The reality is that the constitution empowers congress to regulate commerce among the several states. Commerce is the act of buying and selling. These acts of buying and selling from one state to another may be regulated.

Only in your fantasy world and that of the federal government does the constitution empower congress to regulate people who possess anything that was ever imported into their state. Sorry, neither you nor the federal government get to rewrite the Constitution without actually going through the amendment process.