Marco Rubio introduces bill scrutinizing gun sales to terror suspects

Guns.com ^

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Red in Blue PA. Please note that the following critique is directed at Sen. Rubio’s bill and not at you.

• Concerning suspected terrorists, why is Rubio not questioning what suspected terrorists are doing in the country in the first place?

  Trump cannot get Mexico to pay for the border wall fast enough.

• Next, regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to make policy for INTRAstate commerce.

  ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

  So while a federal background check on gun sales to suspected terrorists is arguably a good idea, low-information Rubio actually needs to first lead Congress to successfully propose an appropriate gun sale bill to the Constitution to the states before submitting his gun bill to Congress.

  In fact, consider that in order for Congress to “breach” the Commerce Clause with respect to prohibiting intrastate sales of intoxicating liquors, Congress first successfully proposed the 18th Amendment which expressly prohibited such sales, that amendment later repealed by the 21st Amendment.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The trouble is with the axiom, that the federal government is able to rationally determine who are terrorists and who are not. It isn’t. So prohibiting guns to the enormous number of people who are *theoretically* “terrorists”, at least according to the SPLC, is just “poisonous fruit from a poisonous tree.”

[binreadin]

And that it the tragedy. On the face of it, it seems like a no-brainer to want to keep guns from suspected terrorists. But then, when you realize who is affixing the label “suspected terrorist,” like the FBI, which isn't at all ethically compromised (sarc), then you realize any of us who opposes what the government does could be labeled as such.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

“any of us who opposes what the government does could be labeled as such.”

Not just the government. The Democrat party as well. The SPLC is a major resource used by the government to determine “right wing terrorists”, and it is appalling what organizations they list.

Dr. Ben Carson (who they later removed from their list), for his “anti-LGBT views”.

The Family Research Council. (Being listed resulted in their being violently attacked.)

Those opposed to unrestricted immigration.

Those opposed to further Muslim immigration.

Those who believe in single gender restrooms.

Those who support the police against those who attack them.

[joshua c]

Yes, lo and behold, the Deplorables will definitely be on that list.