Mass Shooting in Atlanta

#1,851
#1,851
luthervol said:
Nonsense.
I can't drive on any road or even in any lane that I wish.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. Nobody is stopping you. You have that capability. The deterrent from doing so is a punishment if you choose to.

That’s what’s is place today. What you’re suggesting is to tell law abiding citizens they are limited on how many days they can drive, what times they can drive, they are limited to 4 door 4 seat vehicles, and how often they can purchase a vehicle. Pointless arbitrary restrictions intending to limit availability and capability to millions of drivers that already drive within traffic regulations on which side of the road to drive on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,853
#1,853
luthervol said:
Sure it did. It highlights the concept perfectly.
Why should regular and legal Sudafed users be punished because of the crack problem?
Now you can't buy 20 packages of Sudafed at one time. The horrors of lost freedom.
Click to expand...
Yet I could buy every bottle and can of alcohol without limit or registry. You just highlighted the inconsistency and hypocritical nature of this govt you yearn for. Laws are not for safety
 
#1,854
#1,854
BeecherVol said:
It applies with it as well. It would also require another action.
Click to expand...
lol.......The amount allowed to be purchased at one time and per month is limited.
Imagine that. What an attack on the freedoms of normal Sudafed using Americans.......we're becoming China for god's sake.
 
#1,855
#1,855
TheDeeble said:
Sure you can. Nobody is stopping you. You have that capability. The deterrent from doing so is a punishment if you choose to.

That’s what’s is place today. What you’re suggesting is to tell law abiding citizens they are limited on how many days they can drive, what times they can drive, they are limited to 4 door 4 seat vehicles, and how often they can purchase a vehicle. Pointless arbitrary restrictions intending to limit availability and capability to millions of drivers that already drive within traffic regulations on which side of the road to drive on.
Click to expand...
You can illegally purchase any gun you wish. The deterrent is that it is illegal.
What an asinine argument.
 
#1,856
#1,856
utvolpj said:
Yet I could buy every bottle and can of alcohol without limit or registry. You just highlighted the inconsistency and hypocritical nature of this govt you yearn for. Laws are not for safety
Click to expand...
Sure there are inconsistencies and hypocrisies. I'm all for addressing those.

Plenty of laws are for safety.
 
#1,857
#1,857
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe the reason they were able to step in our private affairs was because it dealt with interstate commerce. The consitution is clear that the feds have that authority. So I have no issue with that case.

I havent seen anything which says those intrusions can, backed by the Consitution, otherwise interfere with private dealings. Now sure the government is wont to pass laws saying it can do whatever it wants. But that doesnt mean it's ok, or superceded our rights.

The ruling seems to come down to the following: "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect". And that's because wheat was traded nationally, so even though the event was local the effect was national on the market. Guns arent traded on a national scale. The price of a glock in GA has no impact on the price of a glock in NY.

Further an individual sale of a privately owned gun doesnt impact production, it was already made. Consumption, guns generally arent consumed or used up, at least if it's being sold. Or marketing.
 
#1,858
#1,858
LouderVol said:
I believe the reason they were able to step in our private affairs was because it dealt with interstate commerce. The consitution is clear that the feds have that authority. So I have no issue with that case.

I havent seen anything which says those intrusions can, backed by the Consitution, otherwise interfere with private dealings. Now sure the government is wont to pass laws saying it can do whatever it wants. But that doesnt mean it's ok, or superceded our rights.

The ruling seems to come down to the following: "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect". And that's because wheat was traded nationally, so even though the event was local the effect was national on the market. Guns arent traded on a national scale. The price of a glock in GA has no impact on the price of a glock in NY.

Further an individual sale of a privately owned gun doesnt impact production, it was already made. Consumption, guns generally arent consumed or used up, at least if it's being sold. Or marketing.
Click to expand...
Did you read the cases?

Particularly Lopez where they defined the test for whether something has a substantial effect on interstate commerce?
 
Last edited:
#1,862
#1,862
luthervol said:
Who's being punished? Only people trying to buy 20 guns at one time. I'm thinking that is probably not every Tom, Dick, and Jane. I'm actually thinking it is virtually no one with good intent.
Click to expand...
No one notices the chain on their neck if they dont run out the length of it. Doesnt mean the chain isnt there.

You shouldnt have to participate in the fullest extent of a right to believe the fullest extent is protected. Again your line of thinking is why governments keep doing bad ish.
 
#1,867
#1,867
LouderVol said:
No one notices the chain on their neck if they dont run out the length of it. Doesnt mean the chain isnt there.

You shouldnt have to participate in the fullest extent of a right to believe the fullest extent is protected. Again your line of thinking is why governments keep doing bad ish.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't live in fear that the application of rational and reasonable limits on a right mean that you have lost the right.
The easiest way to loose a right is to not recognize and acknowledge the limits of that right.
 
#1,869
#1,869
luthervol said:
You shouldn't live in fear that the application of rational and reasonable limits on a right mean that you have lost the right.
The easiest way to loose a right is to not recognize and acknowledge the limits of that right.
Click to expand...

The only limits of a right are when it interferes with someone else exercising theirs.
 
#1,870
#1,870
LouderVol said:
Society is made up of individuals. You dont add to the hole by subtracting from each component piece.
Click to expand...
No one is subtracting from each component piece. They are subtracting a little from one component to add even more to other components.
 
#1,871
#1,871
luthervol said:
You shouldn't live in fear that the application of rational and reasonable limits on a right mean that you have lost the right.
The easiest way to loose a right is to not recognize and acknowledge the limits of that right.
Click to expand...
I live in fear of a govt that removes the ability of its citizens to ever fight back when their rights become too limited. We've watched that play out for centuries. Your faith in govt is truly disturbing
 
#1,873
#1,873
utvolpj said:
I live in fear of a govt that removes the ability of its citizens to ever fight back when their rights become too limited. We've watched that play out for centuries. Your faith in govt is truly disturbing
Click to expand...
Your paranoia is disturbing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top