Democratic Party's formal gun control platform

[TurtleDude]

Yes they are being killed by police at an alarming rate.
Seriously.. it didn;t alarm you to watch the Floyd video? That doesn; t alarm you that that police officer could kneel on floyds neck while he died..and do so in full view knowing he was being videoed? It doesn;t alarm you that the police feel SO CONFIDENT.. in their power.. that they feel they can kill a guy on camera who is passed the point of resisting?
It doesn't alarm you.. that THREE OTHER OFFICERS..who are sworn to uphold the law.. and serve and protect... stood by and watched it happen? Which means in their minds.. at some point they made a decision that the consequences of PREVENTING floyd from dying by stopping their fellow officer... were GREATER.. than the consequences of standing by and let a fellow officer kill a defenseless citizen.
It doesn't alarm you.. that an elderly protestor.. can be pushed down by police officers.. so hard that he cracks his head and ends up in the ICU. While officers walk by the man. And when the police administration merely QUESTIONS.. whether the police acted appropriately by knocking the elderly man down... a whole police unit decides to resign from that police unit in protest.. from merely having their actions that resulted in an elderly man in the ICU.. questioned? And when those officers were taken to a hearing on their actions... police officers.. lined up and APPLAUDED them?
That doesn't alarm you?

It doesn't alarm you that a concealed weapons holder. Can be stopped by the police on suspicion.. and then shot... while following the officers instructions... and the officer face no legal consequences for it?

It doesn't alarm you that a 19 year police veteran... stops a fellow officer from using a chokehold, and the 19 year veteran is fired for interfering when another officer is using excessive force? By the way.. the officer she stopped... but he kept his job? Got sentenced a year later for using excessive force again when he slammed a handcuffed teenagers head into a car...
But her firing still stands. Why doesn't that alarm you?

It doesn't alarm you.. that a group of officers.. can procure a "no knock warrant"...on virtually no evidence.. and break into an apartment.. and then surprise surprise.. they are seen as intruders and get fired upon.. and they end up killing the unarmed occupant? And face no legal repercussions?
Like we are to believe 1. They went to the trouble to obtain a no knock warrant.. but then now claim they knocked and announced themselves 2. They assume that knocking on the door anyway and or announcing they were police.. and then breaking it down AFTER MIDNIGHT... that people are going to respond with calm after being woken up by the sound of a door breaking?

And none of that alarms you.. as a supposed libertarian and supporter of freedom. What alarms you more.. is a restriction on ammo sales?

You need to reexamine your lean.
[/QUOTE]
a few cases is NOT an alarming rate. a restriction on ammo sales impacts 100 million people. a few rogue cops-who are under arrest=big difference

 

[jaeger19]

a few cases is NOT an alarming rate. a restriction on ammo sales impacts 100 million people. a few rogue cops-who are under arrest=big difference
[/QUOTE]

Duh.. its obviously not a "few cases"... its obviously a systemic problem when officers can stand by and watch it happen and decide its better for them to let a man die.. than do something about it. because killing a citizen has less consequences than stopping an officer from using excessive force.
Its obviously a systemic problem when it cuts across police departments all across the country.
Its obviously a systemic and widespread problem when a policeman.. knowing they are being videoed.. are so sure of their power that they can blatantly kill a citizen. What do you think the police think when it comes to other lesser forms of excessive force? Oh wait.. thats right.. when one of their own pushes an elderly man down.. and the administration has the temerity to question whether that was appropriate... the police resign from their units and APPLAUD the actions of those officers.
Please don;t even begin to try and state the BS that its "a few rogue cops"... its obviously a systemic, nationwide problem.. that has been going on for a long time.
Cripes..you have a police departments who feel thats appropriate to break down a door of a apartment/house.. pretty much no probable cause at all. AFTER MIDNIGHT...
And then seem surprised that the residents of the apartment/house think they are under attack and attempt to defend themselves.. so the police shoot and kill the residents. And that policy is permissible.

If you were woken up at midnight by the sound of your door being kicked in..and saw armed intruders coming into your room, what would your reaction be? Thats not a few rogue cops.. thats a POLICY.. we are talking about.

Here is what I think is absolutely crazy about your position. So.. you think that a policeman.. who has been vetted.. hired, trained, has had prior excessive abuse complaints, etc by a government institution (police department).. when they commit excessive force.. "why then its a few rogue cops"..
And that there is no responsibility on that government institution..

BUT..BLM.. protest organizers? Who have absolutely no control over who comes to a protest.. their behavior,, etc. If someone commits violence during that protest.. well then its obviously the fault of BLM.. or "antifa"... even though.. unlike the police.. the BLM doesn;t hire, train, equip, vet, discipline or pay these people?

Sorry man.. but you either purposely putting your head into the sand.. to think that threat to freedom is "WHAT.. I cannot buy 10,000 rounds of 9mm in one order"...
And not.. a systemic problem with police forces that feel they can kill and hurt citizens with impunity.

 

[TurtleDude]

a few cases is NOT an alarming rate. a restriction on ammo sales impacts 100 million people. a few rogue cops-who are under arrest=big difference

Duh.. its obviously not a "few cases"... its obviously a systemic problem when officers can stand by and watch it happen and decide its better for them to let a man die.. than do something about it. because killing a citizen has less consequences than stopping an officer from using excessive force.
Its obviously a systemic problem when it cuts across police departments all across the country.
Its obviously a systemic and widespread problem when a policeman.. knowing they are being videoed.. are so sure of their power that they can blatantly kill a citizen. What do you think the police think when it comes to other lesser forms of excessive force? Oh wait.. thats right.. when one of their own pushes an elderly man down.. and the administration has the temerity to question whether that was appropriate... the police resign from their units and APPLAUD the actions of those officers.
Please don;t even begin to try and state the BS that its "a few rogue cops"... its obviously a systemic, nationwide problem.. that has been going on for a long time.
Cripes..you have a police departments who feel thats appropriate to break down a door of a apartment/house.. pretty much no probable cause at all. AFTER MIDNIGHT...
And then seem surprised that the residents of the apartment/house think they are under attack and attempt to defend themselves.. so the police shoot and kill the residents. And that policy is permissible.

If you were woken up at midnight by the sound of your door being kicked in..and saw armed intruders coming into your room, what would your reaction be? Thats not a few rogue cops.. thats a POLICY.. we are talking about.

Here is what I think is absolutely crazy about your position. So.. you think that a policeman.. who has been vetted.. hired, trained, has had prior excessive abuse complaints, etc by a government institution (police department).. when they commit excessive force.. "why then its a few rogue cops"..
And that there is no responsibility on that government institution..

BUT..BLM.. protest organizers? Who have absolutely no control over who comes to a protest.. their behavior,, etc. If someone commits violence during that protest.. well then its obviously the fault of BLM.. or "antifa"... even though.. unlike the police.. the BLM doesn;t hire, train, equip, vet, discipline or pay these people?

Sorry man.. but you either purposely putting your head into the sand.. to think that threat to freedom is "WHAT.. I cannot buy 10,000 rounds of 9mm in one order"...
And not.. a systemic problem with police forces that feel they can kill and hurt citizens with impunity.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree and comparing illegal actions by a few with a systemic violation of the second amendment that effects all adult citizens is specious

 

[jaeger19]

I disagree and comparing illegal actions by a few with a systemic violation of the second amendment that effects all adult citizens is specious

Based on what evidence exactly do you disagree? We are talking about a system violation of the right of people to be secure in their homes, in their persons. Maybe you aren;t aware that there is more to the Constitution than just the second amendment right?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Police policies affect EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.. not just a few. And when those policies and systemic problems result in the unnecessary DEATH of citizens...
A claim that the death of citizens from systemic overreach and abuse by government forces.. pales in comparison with a restriction on how much ammunition you can buy in one order? That's the definition of specious. Wait its not... because such a claim isn't even SUPERFICIALLY plausible.

 

[zsu2357]

I really don't think those who want to ban gun or ammo sales are honestly motivated by deaths.

Yeah they could care less about the deaths. Except to jump up and down and dance in the streets when a multiple death shooting happens and preferably
when it's kids.

 

[zsu2357]

Not sure if I answsered this...just saw it. YOU are the problem because YOU, like every other anti-gun leftist, focus your efforts on laws impacting law abiding citizens while ignoring the day to day violence. Rather than addressing the people actually doing the killing, you excuse it, justify it, or worse, just ignore it. You bleat on abotu 'mass killings' ignoring the facts, then follow tradition by also ignoring the 10,000 dead bodies annually.

It's people like him that think "oh well it doesn't concern me" that lead to this.
https://shenandoahliterary.org/blog/2017/08/first-they-came-by-martin-niemoller/ We all know it well.

 

[zsu2357]

="MaryP, post: 1072801495, member: 32971"]
I'm happier about bullets. Buying really large amounts of ammunition is easy to do online with no one noticing.

Really large amounts with no one noticing?

Okay, I know some people are in competitions, but some are nutball militiamen stocking up for Armageddon and some are planning a Las Vegas type massacre. Neither of those are safe.

How many LV shootings have there been? OH yeah one [1]. Now is this a nutball militia or all militias?

Why can't dealers (brick and mortar stores) start selling ammunition for competitive shooters?

Sure we can be like Mexico and have one [1] in Mexico City ran by the Army.

Why is it so much cheaper online? That seems like something that could easily be fixed if people couldn't buy gobs of bullets online. Better yet, only sell large amounts of ammunition to those in a bonafide gun club, order them through the range?

When was the last time you bought ammo online? And what amount? I buy 7.62x39 and 9mm 200-300 at a time (not as needed)to replace what I use and have some left. That amount online is almost twice the price. Some people buy "gobs" but I already got "gobs". Cash and carry. Ah hell, what's a gob say you?

 

[zsu2357]

I'm not anti gun, sorry.

WTF? AHHH maybe you don't like them very much? You've had me fooled.

 

[bongsaway]

WTF? AHHH maybe you don't like them very much? You've had me fooled.

I can live without one. I don't think in general they belong on the streets. If you want a hundred inside your domain, great, just please don't bring them outside.

 

[zsu2357]

Actually I was the police. Often (too often) I was the only officer on duty on that shift. Thats why our community needed reserve police officers. I went on domestic abuse calls alone. I have had knives pulled on me.. I have had a firearm pointed at me.. I have had to arrest and physically take down criminals that have committed assault, arson, rape, and attempted murder. Its just a fact. Having reserve officers was the not only good for the community.. it gave the paid police force backup on calls.
I did not answer the call for the military.. because I was not called. I was called to medicine and taking care of people in the community.. including our veterans and active military.
Look.. its fine if you want to think that the only way to serve your community is by being in the military. Please be sure to tell the doctors, nurses, emts, police, firefighters etc.. that they are slackers for not joining the military.
You seem to be the one that has an inferiority complex. I never said I was better. I just don;t think that the only way to serve your community is through military service is all.

You do know that that was a waste of a really good excuse? It just went over his head. I think Rambo is about 12 or 13 years old.

 

[zsu2357]

VanceMack said:

but when you are discussing ammunition, who are you to tell me what is 'enough ammo'? Strictly from a 2nd Amendment perspective it is our obligation to keep enough ammo on hand to be ready to step into defend the country in the gravest extreme. Beyond that, if I want to stock 30,000 rounds, how is that any of your business? And why do you care where I get it from?

I already explained what my concerns were. Gun violence is everyone's business because no one is safe from being shot for no reason.

You didn't say why you seemed concerned over VanceMack having X amount of ammo.

 

[Glitch]

Really large amounts with no one noticing?

How many LV shootings have there been? OH yeah one [1]. Now is this a nutball militia or all militias?

Sure we can be like Mexico and have one [1] in Mexico City ran by the Army.

When was the last time you bought ammo online? And what amount? I buy 7.62x39 and 9mm 200-300 at a time (not as needed)to replace what I use and have some left. That amount online is almost twice the price. Some people buy "gobs" but I already got "gobs". Cash and carry. Ah hell, what's a gob say you?

There is also no logical reason to limit ammunition. You cannot use ammunition except via a firearm. Therefore, the ability to cause harm is determined by the number and type of firearms one has, and not the amount of ammunition at their disposal.

If someone has only one firearm, why would it matter if they had 1,000 rounds or 100,000 rounds? On the other side of the coin, if someone owned 100 firearms, it still wouldn't make any difference whether they had 1,000 rounds or 100,000 rounds. It is only going to have the potential to cause as much harm as the number and type of firearms, not the amount of ammunition available.

That makes any discussions about limiting the capacity of magazines superfluous, and an infringement of the Second Amendment. Which was also the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

 

[natman]

I think they want to use the online ban to prevent people from buying 80% receivers and ghost gun kits over the internet.

No, they want to prevent people from buying and selling ALL guns and ammunition online. The overall goal is to make gun ownership as expensive and difficult as possible.

 

[Glitch]

No, they want to prevent people from buying and selling ALL guns and ammunition online. The overall goal is to make gun ownership as expensive and difficult as possible.

The only thing Congress can prohibit are transactions that occur across State or national borders, as part of their Commerce Clause authority. They have no ability to regulate intrastate commerce. As long as the buyer meets the seller in person, and nobody crossed State or national borders, then there is absolutely nothing Congress can do constitutionally to prevent or regulate the transaction.

 

[jaeger19]

The only thing Congress can prohibit are transactions that occur across State or national borders, as part of their Commerce Clause authority. They have no ability to regulate intrastate commerce. As long as the buyer meets the seller in person, and nobody crossed State or national borders, then there is absolutely nothing Congress can do constitutionally to prevent or regulate the transaction.

Thats not what the conservatives on the supreme court said in Raich V Gonzalez.

 

[vegas giants]

The only thing Congress can prohibit are transactions that occur across State or national borders, as part of their Commerce Clause authority. They have no ability to regulate intrastate commerce. As long as the buyer meets the seller in person, and nobody crossed State or national borders, then there is absolutely nothing Congress can do constitutionally to prevent or regulate the transaction.

Not according to wickard

 

[natman]

The only thing Congress can prohibit are transactions that occur across State or national borders, as part of their Commerce Clause authority. They have no ability to regulate intrastate commerce. As long as the buyer meets the seller in person, and nobody crossed State or national borders, then there is absolutely nothing Congress can do constitutionally to prevent or regulate the transaction.

OK, I guess that intrastate transfers would be an exception to "ALL". Unless the Democrats take over your state. As a resident of California I can tell you that's no fun. Or unless the ban internet sales plank of the Democratic platform goes through. But you'll still be able to sell intrastate via ads in the shopping paper.

 

[Glitch]

Thats not what the conservatives on the supreme court said in Raich V Gonzalez.

Why must you repeatedly lie?

There was only one conservative that voted in favor of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and he used a prior decision that had been overturned by a previous court.

Justice Scalia used Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) to base his decision, which had been overturned by United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). All the other conservative justices dissented.

Wickard had been decided under a fixed Supreme Court. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices, whether they wanted to be replaced or not. If the Supreme Court did not decide in favor of FDR after 1936, the justices were replaced. So any decision by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1953 is automatically suspect. Most have already been overturned, but a few still remain.

Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Their constitutional authority ends at State and national borders.

 

[vegas giants]

Why must you repeatedly lie?

There was only one conservative that voted in favor of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and he used a prior decision that had been overturned by a previous court.

Justice Scalia used Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) to base his decision, which had been overturned by United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). All the other conservative justices dissented.

Wickard had been decided under a fixed Supreme Court. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices, whether they wanted to be replaced or not. If the Supreme Court did not decide in favor of FDR after 1936, the justices were replaced. So any decision by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1953 is automatically suspect. Most have already been overturned, but a few still remain.

Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Their constitutional authority ends at State and national borders.

Wickard has never been overturned and all of your stuff about FDR is nonsense

 

[Glitch]

OK, I guess that intrastate transfers would be an exception to "ALL". Unless the Democrats take over your state. As a resident of California I can tell you that's no fun. Or unless the ban internet sales plank of the Democratic platform goes through. But you'll still be able to sell intrastate via ads in the shopping paper.

I was born and raised in California. I moved to Alaska after the illegal 1989 California gun ban. By 1994 Alaska had amended its State Constitution to acknowledge the individual right to keep and bear arms. In 2010 Alaska enacted the Firearm Freedom Act that allows any Alaskan to manufacture, sell, and possess any firearm or firearm accessory made wholly within the State of Alaska without being subject to federal law or regulation. Meaning Alaskans can make, buy, sell, or use fully automatic firearms without any involvement from the federal government.

Alaska is not the only State that enacted a Firearm Freedom Act. Eight States altogether have passed the law, and Wyoming goes so far as to threaten to arrest any federal agent attempting to impose federal law or regulation on firearms or firearm accessories manufactured, sold, and used wholly within the State.

I'm not concerned with Democrat filth spreading beyond the confines of their borders. Heller and McDonald both were decided against the leftist fascist POS and in favor of the people.

 

[vegas giants]

I was born and raised in California. I moved to Alaska after the illegal 1989 California gun ban. By 1994 Alaska had amended its State Constitution to acknowledge the individual right to keep and bear arms. In 2010 Alaska enacted the Firearm Freedom Act that allows any Alaskan to manufacture, sell, and possess any firearm or firearm accessory made wholly within the State of Alaska without being subject to federal law or regulation. Meaning Alaskans can make, buy, sell, or use fully automatic firearms without any involvement from the federal government.

Alaska is not the only State that enacted a Firearm Freedom Act. Eight States altogether have passed the law, and Wyoming goes so far as to threaten to arrest any federal agent attempting to impose federal law or regulation on firearms or firearm accessories manufactured, sold, and used wholly within the State.

I'm not concerned with Democrat filth spreading beyond the confines of their borders. Heller and McDonald both were decided against the leftist fascist POS and in favor of the people.

Alaska can not enforce a law that supersedes federal law. If a federal.officer shows up they will let him do his job or face the consequences


Please

 

[jaeger19]

Why must you repeatedly lie?

There was only one conservative that voted in favor of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and he used a prior decision that had been overturned by a previous court.

Justice Scalia used Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) to base his decision, which had been overturned by United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). All the other conservative justices dissented.

Wickard had been decided under a fixed Supreme Court. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices, whether they wanted to be replaced or not. If the Supreme Court did not decide in favor of FDR after 1936, the justices were replaced. So any decision by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1953 is automatically suspect. Most have already been overturned, but a few still remain.

Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Their constitutional authority ends at State and national borders.

Sorry dude no lying from me. Scalia is hailed as the quintessential conservative.
Boy you can really lay down some bull.