HR 127 is a way to confiscate guns

[T. A. Gardner]

Huh? People that get guns illegally don't get them legally? Ah, DUH. Why does that lessen the need for laws that make those means illegal? Your lame attempt to tie death to an illegal vote is laughable. There is no direct or even loose connection. I guarantee there is a connection between the purchase of a gun and that gun being used to kill someone.

Another logic fail on your part. Complete fail BTW. If a straw buyer purchases a gun legally and then illegally provides it to someone else, that is a legal gun purchase resulting in a gun going directly into an illegal persons hands. And it happens all the time.

Most criminals and others not eligible to own or possess a firearm don't go into a gun store to buy one. They use straw buyers, buy them from some guy's car trunk for cash, steal them, or similar. All the gun laws on the planet won't stop them from obtaining one if that's their intent.
Straw buying a firearm is a crime. So, if a straw buyer does purchase a firearm they committed a crime in doing so. It wasn't a legal gun purchase.

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We are pretty much in agreement here. The rub of course is that trying to make a complex sausage in Washington is really difficult. That doesn't make it less appropriate, I much prefer a bigger solution. I don't think a psych eval to get a gun is appropriate. So I wouldn't support it for any of those things.... except maybe the kids parts. We already know that anyone who runs for political office is by definition insane.

Thanks. Mental health care, or lack of it, is a major weakness in our nation. Mental health checks should be as regular for Americans as physical checks. Like physical health problems, most mental health issues are more easily corrected if caught early.

Once in the mainstream, it would be common sense to prevent severely ill people from access to cars, guns or the voting booth...much less run for office.

The politicians in DC are throwing red meat to their base. In the case of the Democrats, it's ban guns and push Nanny Statism. In the case of Republicans, it's ban abortion and push White Supremacy. Because of this, we see a lot of noise and fighting, but nothing gets done. It's a distraction which costs time, money and only helps to those in Washington DC to look busy while spending our money.

 

[TexanManWithPlans]

If you want to restrict my right to own and bear arms then yes, that is the only constitutional path available. Personally I think you will fail to get that to pass with a 2/3 vote from congress let alone getting 3/4 of the states to agree as well.

Give it time. A century from now, either sanity will have prevailed, or we'll all be dead.

 

[Into the Night]

Than lose it all. See how you like that.

Lose what?

 

[Into the Night]

o please add me to

no worries DOES worry about protecting himself from dissident opinions from his. Hence his ignore list use.

 

[Into the Night]

I think the bill will fail in the house my self and go now where,
but Im also sure that its just the first the democrat will try to bully into law. they still cant grasp the fact that guns don't kill people do .

I have three guns in the room with me right now, and NONE of them have ever tried to kill me.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, it is not a right. There is a difference.

Driving a car is a right. I have already explained how.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, it would be nice if the government issued free photo IDs.

They do.

 

[Into the Night]

We ought to repeal the Second Amendment.

Won't work. The right of self defense is inherent.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no enumerated right in the constitution that gives you a right to own and drive cars. Pretending that there is some clause in the constitution that says that your right to drive and own vehicles cannot be infringed is just pretense. These two things cannot be compared in this context because they are not remotely the same.

You are ignoring the 9th amendment.

 

[Into the Night]

If you want to restrict my right to own and bear arms then yes, that is the only constitutional path available. Personally I think you will fail to get that to pass with a 2/3 vote from congress let alone getting 3/4 of the states to agree as well.

Your right to self defense, using the weapons of your choice does not come from a piece of paper.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have three guns in the room with me right now, and NONE of them have ever tried to kill me.

Maybe if you insulted and abused them more they might...

 

[Into the Night]

If they wanted to confiscate American guns they don't need registration first.

True.

But, we both know Americans would strongly oppose confiscation and it would not be constitutional.

HR127 is confiscation.

Let's worry about things that might actually happen instead of wild scare tactics.

HR127 is a bill in the House.

I got my vaccine shot this morning

Bully for you. Now you can take your mask off.

and heard on a right-wing talk show that it would make me gay.

You probably misheard something. That would be just like you.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I know it applies to the states because both of those amendments have been incorporated.

Nope. Those two amendments have always applied to the States.

Registration has been upheld as constitutional (depending on its requirements):

"D.C.’s basic requirement that guns be registered was upheld, because it imposed only a “de minimis” burden, similar to the burden of registering an automobile. Fingerprinting was valid because it can deter people fraudulently obtaining firearms by using a counterfeit driver’s license. Photographing helps police determine that a person who has a gun registration certificate is indeed the person named on the certificate. The D.C. fees of $35 for fingerprints and $13 per gun for registration were constitutional because they simply covered the costs of administering laws that were themselves constitutional."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-registration-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. You are ignoring Article III.

 

[Into the Night]

That's not the only way. The Heller ruling made that pretty clear. Eight states have banned semiautomatic weapons in some form or another. Last I looked, those laws have not been declared unconstitutional. We had a federal ban for years. So there is no reason we can't do that again. Every enumerated right is limited in some way. Your second amend right to keep and bear arms is no different.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. You are discarding the Constitution and the concept of a Right. No federal or State government has the authority to ban any type of weapon.

 

[Into the Night]

Two questions:

What actual good would registration actually provide is reducing shootings?

It's not about shootings.

How much impact would banning "certain firearms" in reducing shootings?

It's not about shootings.

 

[TexanManWithPlans]

Won't work. The right of self defense is inherent.

The 2A has been debunked. End of debate.

 

[Into the Night]

How much does making murder illegal reduce murder?

By using capital punishment and prisons, that person will not kill another innocent person.

The reality is that states with stricter gun laws generally have lower gun death rates.

No correlation. Argument from randU fallacy.

Countries that have stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths.

It's not about gun deaths.

There is no reason to think those are not correlated, and there are lots of data points.

They are not correlated. You are ignoring death by crime and focusing entirely on guns. An obvious case of hoplophobia.

After 9/11, in order to prevent another attack, we spent billions of dollars and passed all kinds of restrictive travel measures.

None of which do a damn thing except harass the flying public, in violation of the 4th amendment.

And yet to avoid all of these mass shootings, people aren't willing to give up the ability to purchase a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as fast as possible?

Criminals don't respect gun laws. The event that resulted in the largest mass murder at a school was in 1927, and it was not by using a gun.

Is that really asking too much?

Yes.

Is it possible to absolutely quantify this? Probably not.

2. Amendment 2.

But what do you think would have happened on January 6th if Washington D.C. was an open carry area?

It IS an open carry area.

This is NOT a constitutional question.

Yes it is.

Courts have made it very clear that bans on semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Courts do not have authority to change the Constitution.

So it becomes a common sense and pubic safety question.

Your sense isn't common sense. You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God.

You have a hoplophobia problem.

 

[Flash]

Question... Then if voting is such an important Right and duty why are the same people who want to impose such things on gun owners unwilling to impose even the minimal burden of producing an ID at the polls when voting...?

Some don't want a voter ID and others don't want extended voting period or mail-in ballots. The reason is the same--they are afraid it will give their side less votes or the other side more votes.

 

[Flash]

HR127 is a bill in the House.

With no chance of passing.