Mass Shooting in Atlanta

[LouderVol]

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.

Your last statement is true.

On your continuum the limit of sudafed pushed us closer to china than we were before.

 

[utvolpj]

Your faith in government is even more disturbing.

I'm constantly amazed at how much faith people put in others and how little they put in themselves

 

[hndog609]

The easiest way to loose a right is to not recognize and acknowledge the limits of that right.

I've mostly been staying out of this mess but the above is patently absurd. The absolute, iron clad, irrefutably easiest way to lose a right is to cede it to those that think less of said right.

 

[hog88]

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.

They shouldn’t be.

 

[LouderVol]

Sure it is. Carl is a member of society.

So I guess those injuns shouldnt complain about the injustices brought upon them. They were part of society.

Being part of a whole doesnt supersede or invalidate an individuals experience, wants, needs or rights.

 

[hog88]

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 But that doesnt mean it's ok, or superceded our rights.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.

The reason they can step into our personal affairs using the commerce clause is in 1942 we had a corrupt SCOTUS beholden to FDR.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

Second easiest. The government and society arbitrarily taking it away is easier.

And you have proven to be anything but rational or reasonable when it comes to guns. Even when you acknowledge your own ignorance.

 

[LouderVol]

No one is subtracting from each component piece. They are subtracting a little from one component to add even more to other components.

Again even if you dont use the full right doesnt mean it cant be taken from you.

I dont vote, doesnt mean I shouldnt be upset if the government limited it

 

[Tyler Durden]

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

So is a bong

 

[LouderVol]

The reason they can step into our personal affairs using the commerce clause is in 1942 we had a corrupt SCOTUS beholden to FDR.

Yeah I read that a lot of these rulings were all part of the New Deal bs.

 

[LouderVol]

Your paranoia is disturbing.

Is it paranoia if that happens daily?

 

[hog88]

Yeah I read that a lot of these rulings were all part of the New Deal bs.

Sad thing is due to the absurdity of legal precedent we are still dealing with the corruption of the FDR era.

 

[LouderVol]

So is a bong

And one thing being wrongly illegal justifies other things being wrongly illegal.

 

[RockyTop85]

Sorry, I legit missed that entire paragraph.

No worries.

As for regulation of private activities:
“The Court has repeatedly recognized that, if authorized by the commerce power, Congress may regulate private endeavors "even when [that regulation] may pre-empt express state-law determinations contrary to the result which has commended itself to the collective wisdom of Congress." National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833, 840 (1976); see Cleveland v. United States, 329 U. S. 14, 19 (1946); McCulloch, supra, at 424.”

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 US 1 - Supreme Court 2005 - Google Scholar

So, is it regulated by the commerce clause:

Spoiler: “Substantial effect on interstate commerce” isn’t entirely left up to congress, but it’s a very deferential standard.

1. Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity
2. Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce
3. Whether there had been congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education
4. How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.

United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 - Supreme Court 1995 - Google Scholar
Gun sales are undeniably economic activity. I’ve read that between 10 and 25% of all gun sales occur without the involvement of a federally licensed dealer. To the extent that those guns (or, arguably, other guns of the same manufacture or even their composite parts) have travelled in interstate commerce, that would pass the test So long as congress finds that the effect of private sales changes has some effect on interstate commerce such as altering demand for manufacturing, lowering prices charged by manufacturers, etc. There are probably 100 ways that private gun sales meet the standard.

Like I said in my second post, as it has been interpreted, it is a breathtakingly broad source of authority. Before Lopez, I think only one other law had been struck down in the last 80 years.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Go drive on the wrong side of the interstate.

The act of driving on the wrong side of the interstate will put people in danger and is not a constitutional right

The act of buying legal multiple inanimate objects which IS a constitutional right does NOT put people in danger

 

[Rickyvol77]

The comparison is that societal "rights" often trump individual "rights".
You have the right to bang rocks together as much as you wish....until society says you no longer have that right.

Your illogical and irrational fear of what "could" happen with constitutionally protected inanimate objects doesn't represent "society" and will never, ever happen the way your scared mind hopes.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Luth signing up for another bad day? Tough scene.

He's clearly not teaching today, what a shocker, I guess his school system is one of the ones the teachers were too scared to work because of unions and such

 

[Rickyvol77]

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.

Sudafed had to do with meth, not crack and sudafed wasn't enshrined in the Constitution. You are really bad at this

 

[BeecherVol]

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.

Normal Sudafed users arent driving home from the store to find out their Sudafed magically turned into meth during the trip. You re still missing intent and multiple actions as discussed previously due to that fact.

You can illegally purchase any gun you wish. The deterrent is that it is illegal.
What an asinine argument.

Just a few months ago a guy blew up an RV in downtown Nashville. Created a ton of damage and disruption. Do you think the deterrent of illegally parking or littering was considered beforehand?

 

[KB5252]

A right that should have rational and reasonable regulations.
Like a certifiably insane person cannot purchase a gun.

By law can a certifiably insane person legally purchase a weapon now?

 

[McDad]

Your paranoia is disturbing.

Shame on you @utvolpj . Our benevolent government should never be feared.

 

[Rickyvol77]

So is a bong

And nothing keeps you from buying a bong, as many as you want

 

[TheDeeble]

You can illegally purchase any gun you wish. The deterrent is that it is illegal.
What an asinine argument.

It's your own argument.

But that's not what you're proposing with guns mr car analogy.

 

[DC_Vol]

It reduces the availability of guns being sold illegally.

Is this actually happening? Do we have people buying multiple guns in a day and then selling them on the black market?

 

[LouderVol]

Shame on you @utvolpj . Our benevolent government should never be feared.
View attachment 359777

"I'm from the government and I am here to help"