Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-20-2016, 04:11 PM
 
29,428 posts, read 9,617,720 times
Reputation: 3449

Advertisements

Also, as this legal question continues to intrigue me...

I'm no legal expert, certainly not a constitutional law scholar, so with all humility I ask..., when we read "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

What does "among the several states" mean?

Question 2: when we read in Section 9, "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

What is meant by "any Regulation of Commerce?" Does it not read as if commerce is expected to be regulated and/or to do so is not in Contradiction of the Constitution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2016, 04:12 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,522,222 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Exactly!!! This is why I'm glad for Obama's latest announcements. He is inexcusably late in doing this, but at least he is moving in the right direction now. The current laws should be enforced.
LOL. Serious???

Obama's EO is only going to harass law abiding citizens and will do nothing to prosecute criminals trying to buy guns!!!

Please read his EO!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 04:12 PM
 
1,515 posts, read 1,221,586 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Yes. Most guns laws won't prevent mass shootings of the type we've seen recently, although the restrictions on automatic weapons could potentially help to limit damage to some extent.

I think one way to reduce mass shootings would be for news agencies to stop plastering the news of such shootings all over the front pages and turning the shooters into celebrities. Hard to stop, of course, because news of this sort makes lots of money from the advertising that supports the news agency. I'm afraid the only way to curb this is for consumers to boycott news sources that plaster mass shootings on the front pages. But that's not likely to happen.
Legal automatic weapons have only been used in 2 or 3 crimes since the laws affecting them were passed in 1934. So, what damage are you referring to?

Background checks by licensed dealers are already required to be performed in all 50 states. Another background check law won't affect anybody but law-abiding citizens. Criminals won't be affected at all by another background check law, and as has been pointed out numerous times, a background check law wouldn't have prevented any of the mass shootings in recent history.

Some people stupidly say well, why have any laws if they won't prevent crime. The answer is that nobody is saying not to have any laws. But when laws are passed that don't affect criminals but only affect law-abiding Americans, what's the point?

And finally, there is no legal way for a felon to acquire firearms now! More laws won't have any effect on them!

I don't see why it's so hard to understand except that some people just want to stay in the dark as they propose more feel-good legislation that won't do anything!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 05:00 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Exactly!!! This is why I'm glad for Obama's latest announcements. He is inexcusably late in doing this, but at least he is moving in the right direction now. The current laws should be enforced.


By who, and how?

It is the great unknown!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 05:01 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
They should be but that will require more people in enforcement which can be funded or defunded based on who is in power.

Not to mention the intentional patchwork of guns laws need to be federalized to get rid of the loopholes and inconsistencies between state to state and even county to county.

They would have to go door to door ransacking every property, even yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 05:37 PM
 
46,217 posts, read 26,980,998 times
Reputation: 11091
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Please do me the favor of just explaining, not asking more and more questions.
So your answer is, you only take one question at a time? I do not have the position to further the conversation to figure out what you overall stance is?



Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Something I am very glad about too, but why all the "interpretation?" Why not just quote verbatim?
See above, do you not research things? Do you not read other reviews or want to make sure you understand the entire position of the person you are questioning?

oppps, I asked more questions.....dare I say I won't get an answer?



Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I disagree. Chicago is in the national news quite a bit, also often referred to as a "hot spot" when it comes to gun violence and rightfully so, but what point is that if you want to dismiss anything you don't feel worthy of national news as some sort of media conspiracy?
No really. Maybe when the police are killed.



Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Been a while since I had children to teach in my house, but what I did was keep the house free of guns, because I still well remember finding my dad's gun when I was 10 years old, where I was not supposed to be looking. Call me a bad boy. Unfortunately, I couldn't keep my kids from the same risk when they went over to their friend's house.

WOW, so you don't let your children go to other people houses?

You found you dads gun, you are typing right now, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I've tried to teach a good deal else when it comes to guns but it has not included a love or need for them. I respect that people are different that way, however, and the 2A.
Why do people need cars? IS it because they love them or just want them? Do they need 20 - 30 -40 cars? Whhy?


Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
How is that representative of "my side?" I'm still not sure you even know what "my side" really is, but no one on "my side" considers kids killed in drive bys any less tragic or any less part of the problem, certainly not me!
Because you won't answer questions, see the first post, quote above, you asked me to stop asking questions...



Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
If you mean I am being a hypocrite, no.
Answer questions, then we can figure it out.



Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Not exactly. Ultimately I have argued that continued evaluation of what more or better gun-control measures may be appropriate IS appropriate and not "anti-2A" like "your side" wants to insist. Like Obama's EO, I don't dismiss it out of hand like "your side" does.
You accept obamas EO, because you agree with it, yet it does nothing. More laws on top of laws does not mean criminals will agree or even adhere to the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2016, 06:22 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,723,455 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
LOL. Serious???

Obama's EO is only going to harass law abiding citizens and will do nothing to prosecute criminals trying to buy guns!!!

Please read his EO!!!
On what basis do you think the EO's "will do nothing to prosecute criminals trying to buy guns"? The proposals are not as clear as I would like, but I see at least two that seem to suggest increasing efforts to prosecute:

- Urges Congress to pass the administration’s $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 state and local police officers on the street to help deter gun crime.
- Maximizes efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. The president calls upon the attorney general to work with U.S. attorneys across the country to determine gaps occurring in this area and where supplemental resources are appropriate.

Increasing prosecutions will take more law enforcement resources to go out and make arrests, and more judicial resources. If congress does not fund the extra resources, then you might be right; most likely nothing will change (at least until a new congress is elected). The extra resources and "determine gaps" language suggests that some effort will be made. Has Obama, or anyone in his administration actually said "We're not going to prosecute?"

President Obama
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2016, 06:48 AM
 
7,214 posts, read 9,375,282 times
Reputation: 7802
I think everyone understands that many conservatives want the mass shootings to continue. We don't need thread after thread to prove that point. We get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2016, 06:55 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
I think everyone understands that many conservatives want the mass shootings to continue. We don't need thread after thread to prove that point. We get it.
You must be from Manitiwoc County. That kind of backwards thinking is pervasive there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2016, 09:14 AM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
9,267 posts, read 5,098,829 times
Reputation: 8471
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
You must be from Manitiwoc County. That kind of backwards thinking is pervasive there.
Ouch!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top