A legal read on the new "Gun" rules.

[Ishmael]

One legal scholar, Case Western Univ. school of law professor Jonathon H. Adler, has stated that they're legally meaningless. In 25 words or less;

They are merely restatements of existing legal requirements. They are a 'guidance' not law or expansion of law.

So why did he bother with them at all? Primarily for political posturing.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

At this point, that seems to be the general legal consensus.

But frankly, it would not have mattered what he had done. If he had enacted purchasing or manufacturing restrictions many times more severe than those already in place, the very next time a mass shooting occurred he would have been advocating upping the ante of more gun control.

That is simply what gun control advocates do. They always pretend to advocate control on the argument that "if it saves but one life, it's worth it." But in truth they ALWAYS advocate on the basis of the last life or lives that were LOST, not the unknown number who were "saved" or continue to be saved.

The real argument is ALWAYS, "if but one life is lost through gun violence, we clearly have not done enough."

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Makes a person appreciate the Constitution.

 

[Ishmael]

At this point, that seems to be the general legal consensus.

But frankly, it would not have mattered what he had done. If he had enacted purchasing or manufacturing restrictions many times more severe than those already in place, the very next time a mass shooting occurred he would have been advocating upping the ante of more gun control.

That is simply what gun control advocates do. They always pretend to advocate control on the argument that "if it saves but one life, it's worth it." But in truth they ALWAYS advocate on the basis of the last life or lives that were LOST, not the unknown number who were "saved" or continue to be saved.

The real argument is ALWAYS, "if but one life is lost through gun violence, we clearly have not done enough."

In reality no gun laws, or universal health care, or any of the other initiatives that those that want to run everyone's lives (but their own of course) with the excuse of 'saving just one life' will ever save any life at all. Death may be postponed for a greater or lesser period of time, but not a single life will be saved.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

In reality no gun laws, or universal health care, or any of the other initiatives that those that want to run everyone's lives (but their own of course) with the excuse of 'saving just one life' will ever save any life at all. Death may be postponed for a greater or lesser period of time, but not a single life will be saved.

Ishmael

Way deep bro....




LMFAO

 

[phrodeau]

Yep, no point whatsoever in providing health care to extend the life of a nine-year-old, if he dies at ninety.

 

[Ishmael]

Yep, no point whatsoever in providing health care to extend the life of a nine-year-old, if he dies at ninety.

In reality it is the governments best interest not to extend that 9 year old's life if the prognosis is another 81 years of health expenditures just to maintain that life. Obama said as much during the 2008 debates. It's all about the money and control, you're just a pawn in a fools game.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

One legal scholar, Case Western Univ. school of law professor Jonathon H. Adler, has stated that they're legally meaningless. In 25 words or less;

The Fraud is an empty suit who has consistently proven to be very good at doing wrong or meaningless things.....the Iran Deal that never was, the recent Global Warming Summit, Obamacare, Gun Control, the abandonment of Iraq and Afghanistan...the list is endless, just like his incompetence.

In the Worst US President Sweepstakes nobody is even a close second.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

The whole world knows niggers with stolen guns is the problem. If you wanna stop the killing confiscate every gun in Niggertown.

 

[Lancecastor]

More misplaced political forum shit from its 6 posters.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One legal scholar, Case Western Univ. school of law professor Jonathon H. Adler, has stated that they're legally meaningless. In 25 words or less;

They are merely restatements of existing legal requirements. They are a 'guidance' not law or expansion of law.

So why did he bother with them at all? Primarily for political posturing.

Ishmael

Think of the headaches it has created for those tasked with "enforcing" these laws.

Do you put out bounties for people to turn in their fellow citizens whom they suspect have engaged in an unlicensed gun sale?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And one braying jackass Lance...

 

[kbate]

Think of the headaches it has created for those tasked with "enforcing" these laws.

Do you put out bounties for people to turn in their fellow citizens whom they suspect have engaged in an unlicensed gun sale?

Not headaches. Job Creation.

Think of the headaches when you try to sell your father's gun collection and half of the buyers are ATF agents trying to get you to sell without calling NICS for approval.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I would only sell the bullets (wrapped in a gun).



Granted, they would be expensive bullets...

 

[kbate]

I would only sell the bullets (wrapped in a gun).



Granted, they would be expensive bullets...

Be certain you pay the $0.07 per round bullet tax proposed by the, "OH MY GOD, She had 3000 rounds of ammo in her house," crowd.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Have not read them yet. Just a few quick overviews.

How many veterans will now stay away from the VA shrink, fearful that a PTSD call will get their guns taking away....

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Be certain you pay the $0.07 per round bullet tax proposed by the, "OH MY GOD, She had 3000 rounds of ammo in her house," crowd.

I could sell one bullet at a time and I would make damned sure they got their $.07 worth...

 

[imalickin]

Hard to enforce or hire people to enforce the "new" rule(s) when congress has refused to provide funds for its enforcement.

 

[miles]

If the SHTF ammunition will be more valuable than gold.

 

[kbate]

Have not read them yet. Just a few quick overviews.

How many veterans will now stay away from the VA shrink, fearful that a PTSD call will get their guns taking away....

Won't matter. The next thing will be VA rules requiring all combat veterans to visit the psychiatrist before separation and of course this being mandatory means you were committed to a mental health professional and therefore are disallowed firearms.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's why I have a thousand rounds per weapon and more than one safe...

 

[Sean]

Funny, isn't it, the "left" were saying this was no big deal, just proper enforcement of existing laws right from the get go. The gun nuts, however, were screaming about fascism, government takeovers, revolution and "the negro is acummin fer ar gunz!"

 

[miles]

Hard to enforce or hire people to enforce the "new" rule(s) when congress has refused to provide funds for its enforcement.

The new rules are a scam just like everything else coming from The Asshole in Chief.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Won't matter. The next thing will be VA rules requiring all combat veterans to visit the psychiatrist before separation and of course this being mandatory means you were committed to a mental health professional and therefore are disallowed firearms.

You know you just gave an idea that will fly through government to the guy keeping tabs on the known violent radical busybody...

 

[miles]

That's why I have a thousand rounds per weapon and more than one safe...

Got any freeze dried spaghetti and MRE's stashed away?