Why would anyone object to Virginia’s new gun laws?

[Jarlaxle]

Why does any law abiding citizen object to a background check?

Bud, if I'm at the range an a guy offers to sell me a firearm...

why do I need to add to the price by getting a background check done?

If you are at the range and a criminal offers you a ton of money for your gun, do you sell it to him?

how do I know he's a criminal?

If he is a criminal, why is he a member of the range?

can your hypotheticals get any more ridiculous?

Dude...he takes that as a challenge.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

2. Universal background checks

Overwhelmingly supported by most Americans. Why don’t we want to keep gun sales away from criminals?

Explain how these new laws would have prevented the Orlando shooting or San Bernadino shooting or the Military bases that have been used for target practice?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are pushing the gun lobby interpretation. It’s to sell guns.

My little tinfoil hat, conspiracy-theory friend, the “Gun lobby” is made up of average, every day Americans such as myself who do not sell guns. We buy them. And unlike you lunatics hiding in your mom’s basement, we are merely supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution like a good American should.

You are translating it incorrectly and arming criminals with weak laws. Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control.

Some of the poorest towns in America all the residents own a gun and in some cases haven’t been a murder in decades.. its democrat policies that create failure

The state with the loosest gun laws is one of the safest in the country.

 

[Jarlaxle]

2. Universal background checks

Overwhelmingly supported by most Americans. Why don’t we want to keep gun sales away from criminals?

Dude, no law will ever prevent criminals from getting guns. That result simply can't be legislated.

Yes it can and is done every day in the US.

Nearly 3 million people have been denied legal purchase of weapons since background checks have been instituted. More would have been prevented with universal background checks on all weapon sales whether it's bought through a licenses dealer or not. My state requires that. We voted on it several years ago. Every weapon sale in my state has to go through a background check no matter how or where that gun is bought. With the exception sales in a family.


View attachment 301451

Research Suggests Gun Background Checks Work, But They're Not Everything

Two recent studies provide evidence that background checks can significantly curb gun violence. In one, researchers found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring gun buyers to get permits (which themselves required background checks) was associated with a 40 percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides. Similarly, when researchers studied Missouri's 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law, they found an associated increase in gun homicides by 23 percent, as well as a 16-percent increase in suicides.

Dude...you are NOT this thick. Just isn't possible.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That is not what the 2nd amendment says. You only quoted a part of it. Why don’t don’t you try something novel and actually read it.

I have. Literally thousands of times. And it could not be more clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

It’s an inalienable right and it belongs to the people (not some imagined militia).

You know, the Framers were not stupid. They could have just written “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” without mention of a well-regulated militia. They did not, did they?

Well-regulated militia refers to the state not to the individual. It is not an inalienable right to the people , or rather individuals, to bear arms and for nearly two hundred years the Supreme Court did not think so either.

That is wrong. It is either stunning ignorance or an out and out lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

YOU CANT INFRINGE ON OUR RIGHTS

That is not what our Constitution says. If you were American you would know our Constitution is more specific about infringement of specific rights and rights themselves. Many Americans don't really fully understand their rights, so Russian trolls certainly should not be expected to understand them..

Huh

Our 2nd Amendment is very specific. It says we have a right to "keep and bear arms". It also mentions ", a well-regulared militia ", hence, the government has authority for implementing rules.

I would also include the Commerce Clause in the constitution.

It's one simple sentence and there are no exceptions for weapons.

The government has the right to regulate commerce. Buying and selling a weapon is commerce.

No, the Federal government can regulate INTERSTATE commerce.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you want someone capable to take him out before he shoots you?

Should that church a week ago have been a gun free zone, and allowed even more people to be killed?

Do you really want to live in a society where you can’t even pray in a house of worship without the fear that someone will put a bullet in you?

We already do.

All a person has to do is a simple search on church shooting and a list of them will pop up.

That is what the weapons nuts have done to America. Make it not safe to even go to a place of worship or into a school or a mall or movie theater without being murdered by a crazy person with a weapon.

Let us know your winning strategy for preventing 'crazy people' from obtaining firearms.

WITHOUT infringing on the rights on the non-crazies.

Red flag laws

Red flag laws are for removing firearms from people that MAY be a risk to themselves, or others.

They do little to prevent people from obtaining them.

Red Flag laws are to legalize SWATing gun owners. That is, in fact, their only purpose.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

There is nothing wrong with those new weapons laws.

What's wrong is the far right radical extremists. In their mind any weapon safety laws are taking their weapons from them. They're of course lying but if they couldn't lie they wouldn't have anything to say.

They want crazy people and felons to have weapons.

They also, at least the male far right radical extremists, have very small penises and are over compensating for it. Or they feel they have no control of their lives. Throw in a large. helping of paranoia.

They are pathetic people because their actions get a lot of innocent people murdered.

All these laws are legal and in place in many states

Beyond that, they are sensible legislation

Some of them are in my state too. The state legislature won't pass those laws here but we have the ballot initiative here. Anyone can get a petition on an issue and with enough signatures, it gets on the ballot.

The weapons safety laws have mostly been passed by the people at the ballot box here in my state. It shows that the majority of the people don't object to these laws and actually want them.

It's a very small minority who allowed the relaxed weapons laws and the epidemic of shootings in our nation.

If you look at the rally in Virginia this weekend, it was a big crowd. The reality is that most of the people in that crowd don't live in Virginia. They traveled from other states to go to that rally. They don't represent the majority of the people of the state. The majority of the people in Virginia and the nation want these laws. The Supreme Court has already ruled them constitutional. So all the cries from the far right radical extremists are nothing but a pack of lies.

If they have to lie, how valid is their point?

Have any actual PROOF of this turd you squeezed out?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Absolutely there is nothing in those laws that any rational person should find objectionable. It is about the public safety. Given comments on this board and others by right-wingers there are people that should not be anywhere near dangerous objects much less guns.

/——/ Those who give up liberty for the false sense of security deserve neither. BF

Then why are NRA conventions gun-free zones?

Because the venue (always rented) requires it. Any more stupid questions?

 

[KGB]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[rightwinger]

Why does any law abiding citizen object to a background check?

I object to all unenforceable laws.

They are easily enforceable

 

[rightwinger]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why does any law abiding citizen object to a background check?

I object to all unenforceable laws.

They are easily enforceable

Wrong. They are totally unenforceable. Unless you can prove WHEN a gun was transferred, requiring a background check is not enforceable. Unless it was made after the requirement went into effect, you cannot prove it.

 

[rightwinger]

YOU CANT INFRINGE ON OUR RIGHTS

That is not what our Constitution says. If you were American you would know our Constitution is more specific about infringement of specific rights and rights themselves. Many Americans don't really fully understand their rights, so Russian trolls certainly should not be expected to understand them..

Huh

Our 2nd Amendment is very specific. It says we have a right to "keep and bear arms". It also mentions ", a well-regulared militia ", hence, the government has authority for implementing rules.

I would also include the Commerce Clause in the constitution.

It's one simple sentence and there are no exceptions for weapons.

The government has the right to regulate commerce. Buying and selling a weapon is commerce.

No, the Federal government can regulate INTERSTATE commerce.

These laws are executed at the state level

 

[KGB]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

It has everything to do with it. We are talking about a Constitutional right. There’s no difference between free speech, freedom of religion, & the right to keep & bear arms on the Constitutional spectrum.

 

[Dana7360]

There also were no semi automatic weapons. There weren't clips that hold 30 or more bullets. There weren't any hand weapons.

What existed during those days was a one ball musket that took a few minutes to load. Once you shot that load, you have to reload.

So if you really want to get literal about things you can't pick and choose which should apply or not.

This is the same excuse people whom want to limit free speech use saying there was no internet and no Facebook in their time of the writing of the Constitution thus they should not apply.

I say bullshit to both of you

I don't use the rational about how weapons have evolved.

I'm pointing out that if a person is going to get that literal about the constitution, then they can't pick and choose what parts they want to make literal.

I don't think that's BS.

The constitution was written to evolve. The fact that amendments are allowed shows the wisdom of our founders. They were wise enough to think that things will change in the future and the constitution should be able to adapt to those changes.

I don't believe that they meant for some of it to be taken that literally and do believe that they thought those of us in the future were smart enough to know it.

We just have some people who do and I'm pointing out their hypocrisy.

 

[rightwinger]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

It has everything to do with it. We are talking about a Constitutional right. There’s no difference between free speech, freedom of religion, & the right to keep & bear arms on the Constitutional spectrum.

None of Virginia’s laws are unconstitutional

 

[KGB]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

It has everything to do with it. We are talking about a Constitutional right. There’s no difference between free speech, freedom of religion, & the right to keep & bear arms on the Constitutional spectrum.

None of Virginia’s laws are unconstitutional

Wrong

 

[Mac-7]

The NRA interpretation is a fraud:

So well settled was the issue that, speaking on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association’s lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: “One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

I place more importance on the opinion of the Founder who wrote the 2nd Amendment than an unelected judge 200 years later

Which is idiotic given the fact it was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.

I dont think the Framers intended to Court to become the uncontrollable monster that it has

The court has been pushing their constitutional bounds since justice John Marshall and they need reigning in. Thankfully for us that is just exactly what Trump has been up too among his other much needed good deeds done for the good of this nation

The unelected judges have absolute power and answer to no one

they are a danger to our republic

 

[Mac-7]

Not sensible or even legal.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In case you so clueless you don't know, infringed means fucked with or limited in any manner whatsoever.

Being a member in good standing in the NRA doesn’t constitute a “militia”.

Do you want to ban membership in the NRA?

the NRA is a gun rights group and never claimed to be a militia