[RD] Florida School Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
If a state bans certain weapons, importing them would be illegal... The Feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce so they should be helping the state by cracking down on those guns crossing the state line. Kinda like pot, states that legalized it are scrutinized by the Feds for exporters.
 
If a state bans certain weapons, importing them would be illegal... The Feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce so they should be helping the state by cracking down on those guns crossing the state line. Kinda like pot, states that legalized it are scrutinized by the Feds for exporters.

I suggest a wall and make Kansas pay for it !
The Feds cant even stop the import of Fenytal thats killing tens of thousands but you think the Feds can crackdown gun running ?
Iam sure that they already thought of this idea its just impractical.
 
It's not going to just kill them, it's just going to do what needs to be done to ensure public safety as all the ammosexuals act out their silly fantasies of standing up against tyranny. I honestly do think it may come to that - the discourse around the issue is so poisoned by gun industry propaganda that there is no way to let off the steam in a productive way. They're creating a society where the problems with guns being everywhere are obvious, and eventually that built-up pressure will be let loose, but the ammosexuals aren't going to like what happens then. If they had more than few brain cells to rub together they'd yield now to get a seat at the table for a policy solution to this problem. As is the solution is going to be done by people like me who have no patience with pro-gun crap and think the 2nd amendment should just be trashed.
I disagree but I think ammosexual is hilarious.

I find it very interesting that when we had a society with huge numbers of veterans and lots of households with guns we had a more democratic outcome, and now, with household ownership of guns reaching new lows, and the number of trained killers among masses reaching also new lows, we have an untouchable ruling elite unchallenged by the electoral process.
 
I disagree but I think ammosexual is hilarious.

I find it very interesting that when we had a society with huge numbers of veterans and lots of households with guns we had a more democratic outcome, and now, with household ownership of guns reaching new lows, and the number of trained killers among masses reaching also new lows, we have an untouchable ruling elite unchallenged by the electoral process.
In the period after the civil war, when guns were probably in 85% of homes, we had numerous and regular violence especially in areas where there was social discord.
 
In the period after the civil war, when guns were probably in 85% of homes, we had numerous and regular violence especially in areas where there was social discord.
Hm, and reconstruction was one of the fairest legislative pushes for its time. Good catch.

I feel like there's usually insurgency in occupied lands. They seem to like acronyms for names.
 
I suggest a wall and make Kansas pay for it !
The Feds cant even stop the import of Fenytal thats killing tens of thousands but you think the Feds can crackdown gun running ?
Iam sure that they already thought of this idea its just impractical.

Guns are much harder to hide but are mostly legal, why would they have already thought it impractical? They're trying to keep pot from leaving states where its legal, the fact they dont catch it all dont matter. But going by your argument, wouldn't banning guns not only fail but result in more violence as a new, large black market is created?
 
How do you mean that ?
(Do not understand it :()

As Berserker said, the Feds should be helping the states enforce their laws. For example: If AR-15s are banned in, say,California, but not in Arizona, there's not really anything in place to stop someone in California from going to Arizona, buying an AR-15 and bringing it back to California.
 
As Berserker said, the Feds should be helping the states enforce their laws. For example: If AR-15s are banned in, say,California, but not in Arizona, there's not really anything in place to stop someone in California from going to Arizona, buying an AR-15 and bringing it back to California.

The better example is Illinois, but fixing the problem would take away the right wing mantra about gun violence in Chicago despite the strict gun laws. Of course the logical argument that strict gun laws don't matter when the eastern suburbs are in Indiana so you can buy anything you want and don't even need a car to get there is totally lost on them.
 
Guns are much harder to hide but are mostly legal, why would they have already thought it impractical? They're trying to keep pot from leaving states where its legal, the fact they dont catch it all dont matter. But going by your argument, wouldn't banning guns not only fail but result in more violence as a new, large black market is created?

How is the pot crackdown working out ? Lots of succesful intercepts for pot smuggling at state borders ?

Easier said then done

Might as well accpet that the tree of liberty is feed with the blood of school kids from time to time. monthly.
 
Last edited:
The FBI doesn't exist to enforce state laws anyway. This entire aside is nothing but gibberish.
 
That's not what the polls say. 60% of Americans call for stricter laws covering the sale of arms, only 5% of Americans ask them to be less strict.

That's the case since at least 1991, and probably even before. This didn't prevent the supreme court to actually make gun laws less strict, despite the public opinion, after the DC vs Heller case in 2008.

Gun laws continue to be less strict and less strict in the US, allowing now to get an AR-15 shipped online by Amazon in less than 2 days anywhere in the country. But according to the graph below, there's never been more than 14% of Americans actually asking for sales of guns to become less strict!


First of all, I don't believe that you can order an AR-15 from Amazon.
I just checked it. They list accessories (like cleaning kits, slings, scopes, etc) but not AR-15s themselves.

In fact, here is a 2014 article in the Huffington Post in which an Amazon spokesperson said that the company does not sell guns or ammunition: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/amazon-gun-accessories_n_4442154.html

Secondly, while there is the ability to order/purchase a firearm online, you cannot purchase it and have it shipped to your house (like normal online purchases from Amazon).

If you try to buy a firearm over the Internet from one of the nation's 130,000 or so* federal firearms license holders, then you have to go through a background check, period. They'll ship the gun to your nearest licensed dealer. There's no loophole there.
Likewise, if you want to buy a gun online from any seller in another state, they can't just mail the gun to your doorstep. The Gun Control Act of 1968 strictly regulates direct mail of virtually all firearms across state lines, save for antiques. Again, the seller has to ship the gun to a federally licensed dealer. The buyer would then have to go to that dealer, fill out paperwork, and undergo a background check before picking up the gun.
Those two above were taken from a Washington Post news article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gun-over-the-internet/?utm_term=.2f61b192c663
 
Last edited:
I'm all for accountability, but how would it have prevented Florida shooting? Vegas shooting? As a matter of fact, any mass shooting?

The very least would be to ban military style weapons such as AR-15 from public reach. And yes, I know it won't happen with Republicans holding the Congress, but the accountability proposal wouldn't happen with Republicans holding the Congress as well.


The first two years of the Obama Presidency had the Democratic Party with majorities in both houses of Congress, but they did not pass any such ban (I don't recall them ever bringing anything like that up for a vote in Congress).
 
Who cares about Amazon? If you are from Florida then you can also get to a gun show in no more than a few hours drive.

Not renewing the 1994 assault weapons ban was a failure of epic proportion. I guess congress was too distracted with the ACA at the time.
 
This entire aside is nothing but gibberish.

It's only gibberish to you because you don't understand the Constitution. One of the Constitutional duties of the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce. Someone hopping state lines to purchase something that is outlawed in their home state certainly falls within the realm of regulation of interstate commerce, so not only does the federal government have the power to step in on such matters, it can be argued that they have a duty to step in.

The FBI doesn't exist to enforce state laws anyway.

Who said anything about the FBI? This would be a matter for the ATF. I'm seriously starting to wonder just how much of a grasp you really have on how our government works.

Who cares about Amazon?

Apparently Marla does. Otherwise she (assuming "she" because of the username, correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't have posted that. I'm glad she did though, because it serves as an example of just how woefully uninformed people are about how the purchasing of firearms works in the US.

If you are from Florida then you can also get to a gun show in no more than a few hours drive

Your point? Gun sales at gun shows are still subject to the same laws and regulations that gun sales from a conventional store are subject to. The seller still has to have an FFL and the buyer still needs to get an "instant" background check from the FBI (which can take several days despite being called "instant"). This whole "you can purchase a gun at a gun show, no questions asked" thing is just a baseless myth perpetuated by the gun control crowd.

Please: if you are going to argue for gun control, fine. All I ask is that you at least know what you are talking about before perpetuating falsehoods and misconceptions that just make you look foolish.
 
Who cares about Amazon? If you are from Florida then you can also get to a gun show in no more than a few hours drive.

Not renewing the 1994 assault weapons ban was a failure of epic proportion. I guess congress was too distracted with the ACA at the time.

First of all, I was not the person who raised Amazon as an issue. I was responding to another poster who raised Amazon as an item.

Next, the "gun show loophole" does not mean that there are never any background checks for guns sold at gun shows.
If the seller is a licensed firearms dealer, they must perform a background check, be it at their store or at a gun show.

Those not required to perform a background check for a gun sale at a gun show are sales conducted by private parties.
Those private parties would not have to perform a background check if they made the sale at a place other than a gun show (such as from their home).

Some states (9 of them) have additional requirements necessitating a background check for sales of all firearms made by non-licensed sellers (aka private parties selling a gun, be it at a gun show or at another place)
Four additional states have such a requirement but applicable to the sale of handguns only (not rifles).
 
How is the pot crackdown working out ? Lots of succesful intercepts for pot smuggling at state borders ?

Easier said then done

Might as well accpet that the tree of liberty is feed with the blood of school kids from time to time. monthly.

I heard a ring of smugglers in Colorado were busted by the Feds so I know they're trying to stem the flow. We dont see many machine guns being smuggled about so that ban has been successful, true?

The FBI doesn't exist to enforce state laws anyway. This entire aside is nothing but gibberish.

They (DEA) exist to enforce federal drug laws and federal law prohibits pot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom