Bucknellian newspaper article on Federal Gun Laws - FAIL

[buckengr]

This article was published in The Bucknellian newspaper at Bucknell University.

Federal laws across states should govern guns - http://bucknellian.blogs.bucknell.edu/2012/02/29/gun-possession/

As funsized said in her Penn State thread last November:

There is so much FAIL in this article, I don't know where to begin. Anyone want to help draft a rebuttal?

Please read and respond.

[nfafan]

This is why St Santorum made the comments he did when The Obamanation made the remarks about getting everyone into college.

They have become farking re-education camps for our youth.

Just like Castro said - defeat them with their children.

Both my kids graduated from in-PA-state universitys and both had low regard for the constant leftist-socialist shitt that their "non-technical" professors would pound down their throats.

That, plus the US economy whereby anything that can be done remotely by some ignorant-shitt Mumboid IS being done - thanks to the laws that allow US corporations to get away with that crap.

That said - you can't remotely plumb or rewire a house, landscape, roof, frame, lay bricks, draw blood, take an xray, clean teeth, pour a driveway etc. There IS a need in this nation with people that know how to use their hands.

The rest of us degreed-weinies can fight for the scraps of white-collar jobs that those stupid-fuck Mumbai-ans can't do without creating a massive cluster.

[GunLawyer001]

" The federal government should establish a set of universal rules in which states are forced to follow what is stated in Article VI of the Constitution: federal law supersedes state law. This would level the playing field, making it even harder for criminals to purchase weapons no matter the state they live in."

I was not aware that Bucknell had a special ed class. Good for them, even students with special needs deserve to get those degrees in Panamanian Literature, Dwarf Studies, and Chocolate Appreciation. Because that's what employers are really looking for, specialization in useless subjects, from people quoting things they don't understand.

How does one get to Article VI of the Constitution and suggest that Congress needs to implement some Federal gun laws, without being aware that Section 922 is already up to paragraph (z) (that's 26 separate gun laws just in 922); there's also a thing called the National Firearms Act, and there's another thing called the 1986 Gun Control Act, and there's another thing called the 1986 FOPA....so there are already a host of Federal gun laws that apply in every State (what did this Bucknellian think that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms spent its time doing?)

Second, while he was mumbling his way through the Constitution, he might have stumbled across the Bill of Rights, which has something to say about the Feds infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

It's true that state law is subordinate to Federal law. But more importantly, Article VI includes this, which makes all statutes subordinate to the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Third, I wasn't aware that crime control was about making it "harder" for criminals to get guns. When you're shot and murdered, does it matter how much effort the killer put into obtaining the gun? Criminals will always get what they need for their illicit careers, whether it's easily-purchased gasoline for an arsonist, or illegal-everywhere crack cocaine. You can apparently buy crack on the streets of every city in America, and it's not coming from pro-crack states that lack waiting periods and background checks.

Hurdles only deter the law-abiding, who have jobs to get to and often can't take multiple days off to be interviewed, fingerprinted, denied, and then spend time and money to challenge denials, then pay for mandatory "training" and photos and cards and fees. That's the real goal of gun control, to make guns less mainstream by making the cost of gun ownership higher for the non-criminals who don't actually "need" guns to get money.

[twency]

Hurdles only deter the law-abiding, who have jobs to get to and often can't take multiple days off to be interviewed, fingerprinted, denied, and then spend time and money to challenge denials, then pay for mandatory "training" and photos and cards and fees. That's the real goal of gun control, to make guns less mainstream by making the cost of gun ownership higher for the non-criminals who don't actually "need" guns to get money.

If the issue was the first amendment, such laws would have a "chilling effect". But since it's the second amendment, they're "common sense gun control".

[GunLawyer001]

If the issue was the first amendment, such laws would have a "chilling effect". But since it's the second amendment, they're "common sense gun control".

A better example (not that yours was bad at all) is the issue of abortions. I'd love to see some legislator introduce bills to require ID and background checks before a woman can abort her child. Impose a waiting period (the militant woman scream about that one, which is weird, because most of them think that "cooling off" periods are just perfect for evil male gun purchasers). Then we can make up some horror stories to justify limiting them to "1 abortion every 5 years", and create a registry of women who have had abortions.

All the crap that they love to throw in the path of 2nd-Amendment-protected activity becomes misogyny when it's suggested that it be done before a fetus is ripped apart.

We could think of a corollary to the mandatory trigger locks, something to promote chastity, but I think they stopped using them back in Medieval times.

Every abortion kills at least 1 person. How many gun sales result in immediate death, or any death in the next century before the gun finally rusts apart?

[jbachert]

What gets me is his description of how his brothers friend illegally purchased two firearms.

So, by his rational, his brother's friend who broke laws that already exist will all of the sudden start following laws when they add more laws......

Whether a person is for or against gun control I'd love to see anybody justify that idiotic logic.

[9orangeletters]

We could think of a corollary to the mandatory trigger locks, something to promote chastity, but I think they stopped using them back in Medieval times.

Surprisingly, I am in favor of this.

Every abortion kills at least 1 person. How many gun sales result in immediate death, or any death in the next century before the gun finally rusts apart?

Without this becoming a debate on abortion... no, it doesn't. Abortion terminates a pregnancy at a stage in which it is non-viable. Be careful how far down the rabbit hole you want to go with the abortion debate (like I said, I don't want to derail the thread, but since you brought it up...) because an afternoon's worth of masturbatory sperm could *potentially* implant into an egg and make a baby, so why don't we just make masturbation illegal as well?

[WhiteFeather]

Federal laws across states should govern guns

29 February 2012 No Comment


By Josh Haywood

Writer

Mainly due to the fact that our nation is a cult of violence, gun possession is seemingly the most universal political issue that has stood the test of time. Watch the nightly news for an hour and it is almost guaranteed that there will be news of a shooting or murder somewhere in your area. From the shooting of Representative Giffords (D- Ariz.) to just the other week in Bremerton, Wash. where a third-grader was shot after a gun accidentally discharged while in a student’s backpack. Guns are everywhere and often fall into the hands of youth who are more than willing to pull the trigger.

I have seen how easy it is for someone to get a gun when over winter break, a friend of my younger brother showed me a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol and .32 revolver he bought in a street transaction. He showed me how the seller had scratched out the serial numbers and drilled a screw down the barrel to eliminate the distinguishing bullet groves of the barrel. The weapons were very easy to obtain and, better yet, there was no background check required. There is no reason for someone under the age 21 to own a handgun and thus gun laws need federal uniformity.

My stance on the second amendment is a modified version of Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty, which states other persons should leave a person to do what they please without interference. The only modification I accept is the Gun Control Act of 1968 that requires serial numbers on weapons and bans convicted felons from purchasing or possessing weapons. State gun laws are not productive in this country because they vary too much from state to state. Take for instance Pennsylvania and its neighboring states New Jersey and New York; in Pennsylvania there is no permit required to purchase a handgun while in both New Jersey and New York there is. According to www.tracetheguns.org, a website that catalogs illegal gun imports and exports based on arrests, in 2009 364 guns purchased in Pennsylvania were found to have been exported to New York and 397 to New Jersey, each through straw-purchasers: people with clean records who legally buy weapons and hand them off to criminals across the state line. Think about it. That is 761 guns falling into the hands of criminals. Legal discrepancies like this are responsible for numerous deaths every year and are a major reason to implement a universal set of federal laws. The federal government should establish a set of universal rules in which states are forced to follow what is stated in Article VI of the Constitution: federal law supersedes state law. This would level the playing field, making it even harder for criminals to purchase weapons no matter the state they live in.

Opposition groups believe federalism takes away state sovereignty and the individual demographic of a state calls for individual laws in return. It is true that a universal set of laws would make it more tedious to get a gun, but to that I have a separate question: is time equivalent to life? The loss of a human life is never worth the convenience of being able to purchase a gun easily. State sovereignty is still maintained because the state government could customize the parameters of each universal law that is set forth. States could set the prices for permits and define waiting periods as they see necessary, which would allow states with relatively low crime rates to be more loose and those with higher rates more stringent. I normally am not a big fan of government bureaucracy bullshit, but in this case, I extend an exception. It is completely unjustifiable to sacrifice life for convenience.

Gee did this guy that wrote this article call the police to report an "illegal" gun that he saw first hand?

If he handled the illegally modified firearm, did he commit a criminal act for being in possession of gun with the removed serial number. How about knowing how it was illegally transfered?

where is his accountability with breaking the firearm laws ?


Doesn't that make Josh Haywood part of the problem?

[OwnTheRide]

Gee did this guy that wrote this article call the police to report an "illegal" gun that he saw first hand?

If he handled the illegally modified firearm, did he commit a criminal act for being in possession of gun with the removed serial number. How about knowing how it was illegally transfered?

where is his accountability with breaking the firearm laws ?


Doesn't that make Josh Haywood part of the problem?

Holy crap, that would be awesome. I wonder what his opinion would be after getting smacked about by the gun control laws he wants bolstered.

[Philadelphia]

...
Second, while he was mumbling his way through the Constitution, he might have stumbled across the Bill of Rights, which has something to say about the Feds infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
...
You can apparently buy crack on the streets of every city in America, and it's not coming from pro-crack states that lack waiting periods and background checks.

That is not only spot on but coffee out the nose hilarious!