Mass Shooting in Atlanta

[luthervol]

Yea they’re in stock.

That's the type of legitimate reason I was talking about.

 

[BeecherVol]

No.
Don't you get it?
The new law would keep Jimmy from buying 20 guns in a day.

If Jimmy abides by the law in general? Sure.

In which case, you have absolutely nothing to worry about if he bought 10 today and 10 tomorrow for the same total in 48 hrs. Or 70 a week.
You re worried about the wrong guy.

 

[luthervol]

If Jimmy abides by the law in general? Sure.

In which case, you have absolutely nothing to worry about if he bought 10 today and 10 tomorrow for the same total in 48 hrs. Or 70 a week.
You re worried about the wrong guy.

I'm worried about Jimmy. He buys guns "legally" and then sells them not so legally.

 

[BeecherVol]

If fraudulent voters don't follow the current laws why would you think they will follow new laws?

Thats the same question I've asked about guns.

If people are not only purchasing guns illegally but then using them in a illegal fashion, you could abolish the 2nd altogether and you re still going to have "gun violence" by the same people that refuse to follow the law now.

 

[BeecherVol]

I'm worried about Jimmy. He buys guns "legally" and then sells them not so legally.

So he's going to do what different with a new law?

Remove Jimmy and someone else fills the void.

The market will always be there. And there will always be someone willing to fill it. Thats nothing new. Legal or illegal.

 

[StarRaider]

Thats the same question I've asked about guns.

If people are not only purchasing guns illegally but then using them in a illegal fashion, you could abolish the 2nd altogether and you re still going to have "gun violence" by the same people that refuse to follow the law now.

or maybe the gov'ment could enforce existin gun laws?
Hunter Biden gun incident at market in 2018 led to police investigation

 

[luthervol]

Thats the same question I've asked about guns.

If people are not only purchasing guns illegally but then using them in a illegal fashion, you could abolish the 2nd altogether and you re still going to have "gun violence" by the same people that refuse to follow the law now.

I guess it boils down to how many fraudulent votes are you willing to tolerate before you start making laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens in the hopes of reducing the number of fraudulent votes.

 

[StarRaider]

I guess it boils down to how many fraudulent votes are you willing to tolerate before you start making laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens in the hopes of reducing the number of fraudulent votes.

so are u for or against crackheads fraudulently purchasing guns? Check yes or no.

 

[BeecherVol]

I guess it boils down to how many fraudulent votes are you willing to tolerate before you start making laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens in the hopes of reducing the number of fraudulent votes.

With the other topic you dont have a "hope".

 

[Rickyvol77]

More like child pornography.
We can't eliminate it, but we should try.

Drugs and child porn are awful. A gun is a tool

 

[Rickyvol77]

Close the gun show loophole.
Limit the number of guns that can be purchased by an individual in a given time frame.

There is no “gun show loophole” that can be “closed”. It’s literally impossible to do. And there’s no reason to limit someone’s constitutional right to buy a legal product just because you have an illogical fear of them

 

[Rickyvol77]

Because it makes the world a better place.
You've accumulated 21 guns over what time frame?
When did you purchase your first gun?

The “world a better place”? Jesus no wonder you are a “teacher”

 

[Rickyvol77]

Whoever said they could be stopped? That's nonsense.
That's like saying murder can be stopped.

Purchasing a legal item is not equal to murder

 

[Rickyvol77]

I would think that an educator would be more insistent on using accurate terminology. Words and phrases have meaning.

And, as I stated in a previous post, you're mindlessly regurgitating terms that you heard somewhere else.

He’s simply not that bright

 

[Rickyvol77]

Because Jimmy purchased 20 guns right after you did and turned around and sold them illegally.

And no law will stop him from doing that. Even if he just bought 2 and did the same thing.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Of course we need a gun registry.

LOL

 

[YankeeVol]

I’m no lawyer and am not versed in commerce case law. But it is my understanding that the “loophole” was left out of the law on purpose due to the lack of authority to regulate a private sale between 2 private individuals within a state. In that case a firearm is no different than a lawnmower in terms of what the feds have the power to regulate.

Now, personally, I wouldn’t sell a firearm to another without seeing a CWP. I think it’s still a personal responsibility to ensure your not arming someone who isn’t legally supposed to have one.

You can legally own a gun (firearm) without a CWP. I know more people without a CWP than with that (can) legally own guns.

 

[hog88]

I too think the law would be a lot more useful to the people who have to abide by it, if we could all just rely our own understanding of certain words. Unfortunately, this often turns into people making up standards that suit their own purposes or legislators pushing envelopes. So things have to be given a precise meaning. And when one considers the precise meaning given to the commerce clause authority, your post is almost entirely incorrect.

Wickard v. Filburn is just one case and I brought it up for two reasons: 1. To show that intrusion into private activity is fair game and 2. it established the aggregation principle.

Both of which are principles that are applicable to private gun sales, even if it’s not the exact same private activity.

Supreme Court opinions are all publicly available. There have been a lot of law review articles written criticizing their interpretation of the commerce clause. Many of them are also publicly available. I’d start with at least looking at Wikipedia for NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp, US v. Darby, Wickard, and then US v. Lopez in 1995. If you don’t want to do all of that just start with Lopez, which further articulated the definition of substantial impact on interstate commerce.

But doesn’t US v Lopez invalidate any use of Wickard v Flilburn when it comes to using the Commerce Clause to regulate state carry laws?

 

[hog88]

No.
Don't you get it?
The new law would keep Jimmy from buying 20 guns in a day.

It would also punish Carl and not permit him to buy 20 guns a day whe Carl hasn’t done anything illegal.

 

[hog88]

There are no gun laws that prevent law abiding citizens from exercising the right to buy a gun.........unless they are insane.
That's probably because guns in an insane person's hands are far more dangerous than a single vote in an insane person's hand.

Yeah there are.

 

[Orangeslice13]

"Not a gun person"

That's the mistake, you still think this is about guns. It's about rights some cowards are willing to part with in the name of govt control while others are not. Right now the current admin is trying to take away the 4th by using the 2nd as a boogeyman. You lack foresight

It’s amazing how blind to this most people are.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It would also punish Carl and not permit him to buy 20 guns a day whe Carl hasn’t done anything illegal.

I collect WW2 firearms. I have not purchased any in about a year. In the past 2 weeks I’ve run into 4 must haves. Why should I not get to collect history because of someone else having problems?

Yes I know 4 isn’t 20 but it’s a real world example and proves lil Piggies point.

 

[norrislakevol]

There is no “gun show loophole” that can be “closed”. It’s literally impossible to do. And there’s no reason to limit someone’s constitutional right to buy a legal product just because you have an illogical fear of them

Just wait until there are more advancements in 3D printing. You can make your own parts for any firearm you want to create. All gun control laws from then on out would be totally pointless.

 

[luthervol]

so are u for or against crackheads fraudulently purchasing guns? Check yes or no.

I'm against.

 

[luthervol]

It would also punish Carl and not permit him to buy 20 guns a day whe Carl hasn’t done anything illegal.

Carl will be ok.