• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun background checks: February is third-biggest month ever

MickeyW

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is only natural, when people fear the government is going to do something else with the continual chip away at the 2nd Amendment gun sales go up. We also cannot discount all the rhetoric already in this campaign season causing all sorts of anger and fear for a host of subjects and reasons. Intentional or not, the results are a real lack of social cohesion and "comfort" about the future of this nation no matter who wins.

As ironic as it may be though, the best advertisement for gun sales is a Democrat talking about going after something else related to legal gun sales. Usually in some vain effort to deal with those really willing to harm someone with one. With this subject specifically, my tag line comes into play.
 
OrphanSlug said:
It is only natural, when people fear the government is going to do something else with the continual chip away at the 2nd Amendment gun sales go up. We also cannot discount all the rhetoric already in this campaign season causing all sorts of anger and fear for a host of subjects and reasons. Intentional or not, the results are a real lack of social cohesion and "comfort" about the future of this nation no matter who wins.

As ironic as it may be though, the best advertisement for gun sales is a Democrat talking about going after something else related to legal gun sales. Usually in some vain effort to deal with those really willing to harm someone with one. With this subject specifically, my tag line comes into play.
Click to expand...
To the bolded:

"with the continual chip away at the 2nd Amendment"

Huh?

With all respect, I disagree here.

For more than a decade, gun rights have been greatly expanded!

The 'assault weapon' sunset, 'Heller", and McDonald', come easily to mind. Along with the increase in concealed & open carry, carry reciprocity between states, 'stand your ground', etc. I have never seen more liberal gun laws in my lifetime, and I was present at the '68 Democratic convention, so I'm not a wet-behind-the-ears kid!

Now if you'd like to predicate your statement with "the perceived enactment of new legislation", or perhaps speak "in terms of the long history of our country", then I might go along with that. But I have seen no "continual chipping" being done for quite a while, at least in the big picture, and in fact I've seen the exact opposite: an expansion of rights.

Now there may be some small-time local or marginal stuff of which I'm not aware, but I'm speaking of the big picture.

Edit: Oops! I forgot about the President's recent EO, since it didn't go into effect (at least yet). I'll admit that's a fair point.
 
Chomsky said:
To the bolded:

"with the continual chip away at the 2nd Amendment"

Huh?

With all respect, I disagree here.

For more than a decade, gun rights have been greatly expanded!

The 'assault weapon' sunset, 'Heller", and McDonald', come easily to mind. Along with the increase in concealed & open carry, carry reciprocity between states, 'stand your ground', etc. I have never seen more liberal gun laws in my lifetime, and I was present at the '68 Democratic convention, so I'm not a wet-behind-the-ears kid!

Now if you'd like to predicate your statement with "the perceived enactment of new legislation", or perhaps speak "in terms of the long history of our country", then I might go along with that. But I have seen no "continual chipping" being done for quite a while, at least in the big picture, and in fact I've seen the exact opposite: an expansion of rights.

Now there may be some small-time local or marginal stuff of which I'm not aware, but I'm speaking of the big picture.

Edit: Oops! I forgot about the President's recent EO, since it didn't go into effect (at least yet). I'll admit that's a fair point.
Click to expand...

you make valid point but you miss the idiocy of places like Connecticut and California, Maryland and Illinois and other Bannite run idiocy

and until the commerce clause is finally restored to the boundaries that should limit it, the rights of American gun owners are still being raped.
 
TurtleDude said:
you make valid point but you miss the idiocy of places like Connecticut and California, Maryland and Illinois and other Bannite run idiocy

and until the commerce clause is finally restored to the boundaries that should limit it, the rights of American gun owners are still being raped.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but good luck in rescinding the commerce clause!

There's just too much now tied to it, for them to undue it in practical terms. Of course that's a separate issue from it's Constitutionality, but as we know the law only means what a given judge rules on a given day.

I took a funky Constitutional law class that somehow worked as a law school school elective, but was also open to select undergrads who had to interview with the instructor from the law school. This instructor had an amazingly calloused opinion of the Court's legal gymnastics performed to meet political goals, and used the Commerce Clause as his prime scapegoat!

Maybe someday I'll post or P.M. my experience in it. I gained a lot of respect for the abilities of the law students from that class, considering us Comp Sci & Engineering guys were used to thinking of ourselves as the hot-shots of the undergrads!
 
Chomsky said:
Fair enough, but good luck in rescinding the commerce clause!

There's just too much now tied to it, for them to undue it in practical terms. Of course that's a separate issue from it's Constitutionality, but as we know the law only means what a given judge rules on a given day.

I took a funky Constitutional law class that somehow worked as a law school school elective, but was also open to select undergrads who had to interview with the instructor from the law school. This instructor had an amazingly calloused opinion of the Court's legal gymnastics performed to meet political goals, and used the Commerce Clause as his prime scapegoat!

Maybe someday I'll post or P.M. my experience in it. I gained a lot of respect for the abilities of the law students from that class, considering us Comp Sci & Engineering guys were used to thinking of ourselves as the hot-shots of the undergrads!
Click to expand...

It's not the commerce clause that needs to be rescinded.

It is the unrealistic expansion into a doctrine that everything can be tied to commerce, allowing Congress to interfere in things it was never meant to.
 
Captain Adverse said:
It's not the commerce clause that needs to be rescinded.

It is the unrealistic expansion into a doctrine that everything can be tied to commerce, allowing Congress to interfere in things it was never meant to.
Click to expand...
You state the issue more detailed and accurately than I did, but yes I agree.

The CC's poor reading allows us to continue the atrocity that is the War on Drugs (amongst other things), so the 2A guys are not the only ones that have problems with the CCs interpretation!
 
This is good news!!
I love the thought of my fellow citizens adding possibly 2.6mm new guns to the armory.

Behind every blade of grass....
 
Captain Adverse said:
It's not the commerce clause that needs to be rescinded.

It is the unrealistic expansion into a doctrine that everything can be tied to commerce, allowing Congress to interfere in things it was never meant to.
Click to expand...

One of Scalia's former clerks-a law professor holding an endowed chair at a major league Law school noted that Scalia was afraid to reign in the commerce clause since it would cause social upheaval if it was actually restricted to even the most liberal honest reading of "commerce among the states"

not only would federal gun control be struck down-as it should, so would Title VII as applied to private businesses, Social security, Title IX, Medicaid and other programs many americans "depend on" would fall too

and I can see his fears (or former fears since he's dead) but the CC as justification for gun control is idiotic and needs to go ASAP
 
TurtleDude said:
One of Scalia's former clerks-a law professor holding an endowed chair at a major league Law school noted that Scalia was afraid to reign in the commerce clause since it would cause social upheaval if it was actually restricted to even the most liberal honest reading of "commerce among the states"

not only would federal gun control be struck down-as it should, so would Title VII as applied to private businesses, Social security, Title IX, Medicaid and other programs many americans "depend on" would fall too

and I can see his fears (or former fears since he's dead) but the CC as justification for gun control is idiotic and needs to go ASAP
Click to expand...
Even though I want to see a return to constitutional governance I must admit that it would have to be done at a reasonable pace if possible. As Chomsky and yourself have pointed out, even Scalia, the abuse has become so entrenched that ripping all of the rot out at once would cause shockwaves of social upheaval, so the only logical response would be to gradually wean our dependence on these programs and interpretations until we are closer to a constitutional federal republic.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Even though I want to see a return to constitutional governance I must admit that it would have to be done at a reasonable pace if possible. As Chomsky and yourself have pointed out, even Scalia, the abuse has become so entrenched that ripping all of the rot out at once would cause shockwaves of social upheaval, so the only logical response would be to gradually wean our dependence on these programs and interpretations until we are closer to a constitutional federal republic.
Click to expand...

eliminating the 1934 NFA and the Hughes amendment should happen ASAP and would not have any issues. Leaving federal bans on felons etc (get rid of the Lautenberg amendment though) for a few years would be acceptable as long as we ultimately get the federal government out of gun issues. The requiring FFL licenses probably will always remain due to shipping across state lines even though If I were a justice I would vote to strike that law down as well
 
TurtleDude said:
eliminating the 1934 NFA and the Hughes amendment should happen ASAP and would not have any issues. Leaving federal bans on felons etc (get rid of the Lautenberg amendment though) for a few years would be acceptable as long as we ultimately get the federal government out of gun issues. The requiring FFL licenses probably will always remain due to shipping across state lines even though If I were a justice I would vote to strike that law down as well
Click to expand...
Most of the gun issues could be eliminated relatively quickly from federal law books without incident, the biggest problems are going to be social programs and alphabet agencies.
 
chungmee85 said:
Me either. I was just wondering about the specific jump during that timeframe and throwing out a potential indicator/reason. Just an idea.

- CMee
Click to expand...

Ya, I got that....could be.
My classes always pickup after Christmas....many people pay for my class as a gift, to family and friends.
And they get another boost after tax returns come in.
The biggest "new" thing for me, is employers paying me to give classes to their employees and families. I've done hundreds of classes at the work place of clients, but the employees always had to pay their own way. This year, some small, and large employers, are paying for the classes.
 
TurtleDude said:
you make valid point but you miss the idiocy of places like Connecticut and California, Maryland and Illinois and other Bannite run idiocy

and until the commerce clause is finally restored to the boundaries that should limit it, the rights of American gun owners are still being raped.
Click to expand...

Ok in regards to Illinois, they got told they had to offer a viable path to CC, when the state dragged it's feet downstate Sheriffs started holding classes on their own.

Go up to Cook County and the surrounding environs for the people that hate the 2nd.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Even though I want to see a return to constitutional governance I must admit that it would have to be done at a reasonable pace if possible. As Chomsky and yourself have pointed out, even Scalia, the abuse has become so entrenched that ripping all of the rot out at once would cause shockwaves of social upheaval, so the only logical response would be to gradually wean our dependence on these programs and interpretations until we are closer to a constitutional federal republic.
Click to expand...

That would take honest players on both sides over a pretty long period of time.
 
NonoBadDog said:
That would take honest players on both sides over a pretty long period of time.
Click to expand...
True, and the worst thing is it would require constant vigilance by the voting public, definitely a problem.
 
LaMidRighter said:
True, and the worst thing is it would require constant vigilance by the voting public, definitely a problem.
Click to expand...

The public is barely smart enough to fill out a ballot much less understand what is on the ballot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom