An interesting read concerning the predicted DNC push for gun control

[Fledermaus]

If you need me to convince you it's not legal in the US to own any gun on the planet, you're not worth wasting my time explaining it further. Adios.

Made a statement. Now running from that statement.

 

[Fledermaus]

Rich doesn't want a complete gun ban. Based on posts of his where he talks about what he wants, what he talks about is more or less the same kind of gun control that Japan has, which is not a complete ban.

Rich waivers between full ban and/or inactivating all guns and lesser methods of confiscation/control.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Do the Democrats want to ban and confiscate some guns currently in common use for lawful purposes? Is attempting to confiscate any guns that are in common use for lawful purposes acceptable?

That appears to be the case for the latest "red flag" laws which allow (some special?) folks to convince a judge that someone else (not charged with any crime and never informed of the judicial petition) should have their gun(s) confiscated by LEOs. A hearing may then be scheduled to allow the person stripped of their gun(s) to explain why they should have their confiscated personal property returned. Like many civil asset forfeiture laws, the state is not obligated to provide any legal representation to the "never accused" which has already been sentenced to loss of their property or to offer any compensation for the property ceased.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And to think, Bloomberg might be running for President in 2020.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

 

[VanceMack]

This isn't a "pro-rights" vs. "anti-rights" question. Virtually all mainstream politicians on both sides support the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. However ALL rights have limits, and you're one of the fringe radicals that believes that gun ownership should have no rules whatsoever and a complete free-for-all. You automatically attack ANY gun regulation at the federal level as a fundamental violation of our rights, with no consideration of what is actually being proposed.

The American people as a whole understand that all rights do have limits and should be regulated to some degree, and luckily over the past few decades we've taken more and more steps towards that. Most Americans disagree with you that violent criminals should have unfettered access to machine guns. This is a battle you're losing, and your hysterical fear-mongering isn't making you look more credible.

:lamo

Your comments are hysterical. No one is advocating that violent criminals have unfettered access to machine guns. Credible? Hell...you bleating on hysterically like a rabid alpaca about the use of machine guns...an impossibly rare occurrence...while ignoring the day to day gun violence that is the actual PROBLEM in this country...an instance that occurs in democrat controlled ****holes across the country daily...pretty clearly puts your lack of credibility on full display.

 

[jamesrage]

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/...a_By4C7w_yFMTv3lPQDacq1JsI3BfKXXANNhc60672DHk

from the article

[FONT="]The Democrats have made it no secret that they plan to push through an agenda heavy on gun control when they take control of the House of Representatives in January. It’s also no secret that they have no chance in hell of any of the bills they pass going anywhere after it leaves their chamber of Congress.
[/FONT]
this article discusses why the dems are pushing laws they know won't get past the current senate

I would say it was similar to when republicans used to pass numerous D.O.A. Obama care repeal bills when Obama was president. It was so they can con their voters into thinking that they are really attempting to do something when in reality they aren't.Because I remember some of the idiots on the forum and even in talk radio who would make a big deal out of some republican writting a DOA Obama care repeal bill as though it had some chance of passing when in reality in didn't. Although I trust Trump as far as I can throw my best friend when it comes to firearms. Trump used to support an assault weapons ban and this thing with bump stocks. So if the dems get control of both houses( and they don't listen to crazies in their party who want to remove Trump) Trump may be very accommodating to the anti-2nd amendment trash in the democrat party the next time there is a high profile mass shooting involving white victims.

 

[zsu2357]

Excerpt post#16

Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca
You can't keep machine guns out of violent criminals hands, as you claim you want, without a little regulation. Hyperventilating and exaggerating every time a regulation is suggested doesn't match that stance.

If a violent criminal wants a machine gun bad enough and has the bucks he WILL get a machine gun regardless of a lot or a little regulation.

 

[zsu2357]

=RabidAlpaca;1069459506]Yep, thank god we've been able to push at least THAT much gun control regulation. Nevertheless, there are many nuts in this country that criticize ALL regulation, no matter the content. You can not claim to support keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and be against all regulation. These two stances are incompatible.

Not all people criticize all by a long shot. But you go ahead and keep up to date with Everytown.

Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca
The courts have also ruled you don't have the right to ANY kind of gun. You don't have a right to a nuke, or a gatlin gun. Point being there are limits to every right, and a balance can certainly be found.

Sure don't want no nukes who knows where. But a Gatling would be cool. Now see how well that balanced out?

Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca
Yeah, it's almost like the Republicans screaming "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!!" were completely full of **** and playing your emotions like a fiddle.

Or it could be like all the Democrats in Congress trying to tug on heart strings.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

:lamo

Your comments are hysterical. No one is advocating that violent criminals have unfettered access to machine guns. Credible? Hell...you bleating on hysterically like a rabid alpaca about the use of machine guns...an impossibly rare occurrence...while ignoring the day to day gun violence that is the actual PROBLEM in this country...an instance that occurs in democrat controlled ****holes across the country daily...pretty clearly puts your lack of credibility on full display.

If someone attacks ALL regulation, they want no regulation. Your attempt to pretend nobody does that is rejected.

 

[Arby]

Can you imagine “ gun control “ in PA? There’d be no revenue to manage their state parks. Zero.

...or the PA Game Commission, the public game lands, etc...

 

[VanceMack]

If someone attacks ALL regulation, they want no regulation. Your attempt to pretend nobody does that is rejected.

You nor any of the regular gun banning set have ever come up with a regulation that even made sense, let alone shown that the regulations would actually solve anything. So yeah...we DO reject stupid regulations proposed in the name of "but we just GOTTA pass SOMETHING!!!"

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You nor any of the regular gun banning set have ever come up with a regulation that even made sense, let alone shown that the regulations would actually solve anything. So yeah...we DO reject stupid regulations proposed in the name of "but we just GOTTA pass SOMETHING!!!"

Haha, look at you exaggerating my position like the turtle. Nobody has suggested banning guns and there has been no Democrat push tto do so. You use hysterical exaggerations to paint everyone who disagrees with you on anything as an extremist.

And yes, if you whine, bitch and moan at EVERY gun regulation, even the existing ones. "Waa, Waa, background checks harm my freedom!" then you can't pretend you support keeping certain guns out of certain people's hands.

Made a statement. Now running from that statement.

Nope, you and I just both know not every gun in the world is legal in the US, so I'm not going to waste time proving something everyone knows when the person who asked for it will just reject it.

If you have evidence every gun on earth is legal in the US, present it.

Excerpt post#16

If a violent criminal wants a machine gun bad enough and has the bucks he WILL get a machine gun regardless of a lot or a little regulation.

Then I'll file you in the "all regulations are evil and I don't want anything preventing criminals getting machine guns" camp.

You've got plenty of company in this thread.

So you think a gun is on the same scale as a nuke?

No, but it's a simple example that your extremist position that all arms of every kind are our birthright is complete nonsense. The second amendment has limits, like all rights. Sorry that fact bothers you.

 

[Arby]

Excerpt post#16

If a violent criminal wants a machine gun bad enough and has the bucks he WILL get a machine gun regardless of a lot or a little regulation.

How? They are strictly regulated, requiring federal permits and are registered.
The only way would be through the black market, smuggled into the country.
How often are machine guns used in a crime anyway?

 

[VanceMack]

Haha, look at you exaggerating my position like the turtle. Nobody has suggested banning guns and there has been no Democrat push tto do so. You use hysterical exaggerations to paint everyone who disagrees with you on anything as an extremist.

And yes, if you whine, bitch and moan at EVERY gun regulation, even the existing ones. "Waa, Waa, background checks harm my freedom!" then you can't pretend you support keeping certain guns out of certain people's hands.



Nope, you and I just both know not every gun in the world is legal in the US, so I'm not going to waste time proving something everyone knows when the person who asked for it will just reject it.

If you have evidence every gun on earth is legal in the US, present it.



Then I'll file you in the "all regulations are evil and I don't want anything preventing criminals getting machine guns" camp.

You've got plenty of company in this thread.



No, but it's a simple example that your extremist position that all arms of every kind are our birthright is complete nonsense. The second amendment has limits, like all rights. Sorry that fact bothers you.

Sure there are democrat pushes to ban guns. Oh wait...you are one of THOSE guys that will claim that as long as they dont ban single shot weapons they arent 'banning guns'....

Hell...not only do you have democrats advocating for total gun bans, you have one rat bastard douchebag suggesting using nukes on private citizens would be a good idea. THATS the kind of ****ing morons you have on the left.

Like I said...your problem is that you cant demonstrate how gun regulations do anything but harm law abiding citizens and threaten gun rights. There isnt a single piece of anti-gun legislation proposed by ANYONE on the left that has been shown to be effective at stopping the day to day gun violence or school shootings. What we oppose are idiots making laws for the sake of making laws.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Sure there are democrat pushes to ban guns. Oh wait...you are one of THOSE guys that will claim that as long as they dont ban single shot weapons they arent 'banning guns'....

Hell...not only do you have democrats advocating for total gun bans, you have one rat bastard douchebag suggesting using nukes on private citizens would be a good idea. THATS the kidn fo ****ing morons you have on the left.

Like I said...your problem is that you cant demonstrate how gun regulations do anything but harm law abiding citizens and threaten gun rights. There isnt a single piece of anti-gun legislation proposed by ANYONE on the left that has been shown to be effective at stopping the day to day gun violence or school shootings. What we oppose are idiots making laws for the sake of making laws.

So then you're opposed to 100% of all gun regulation, correct? How are you not the person I described who wants no kind of regulatory mechanism preventing criminals from getting certain kind or all guns?

You called me an extreme exaggerator for describing such a person but both you and the Turtle oppose the very concept of gun regulation.

 

[VanceMack]

[h=3]“Assault Weapons Ban of 2018” Contents[/h] Introduced by Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and co-sponsored by 166 other Democrats, the measure would—according to a presser from Cicilline—“prohibit the sale, production, transfer and importation”—of the following items:

• Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine
• All Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds
• Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature
• Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds
• 205 specifically-named and listed firearms

The language of the bill defines classifies the following as “military-style features”: pistol grip; forward grip; detachable magazine; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; and threaded barrel.
The bill bans AR rifles and pistols made by the likes of Sig Sauer, Ruger, Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, Steyr, CZ, IWI, Heckler & Koch, Daniel Defense, Armalite, Remington, Rock River Arms, Bushmaster, FN, Barrett, and many others. Belt-fed semi-auto firearms like the TNW M2HB and FN M2495 would also get the axe.
Also banned in this bill are “all AK types.”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/cosponsors

Sponsored by 168 democrats in the House..but the rats arent looking to ban guns. Really!

 

[VanceMack]

So then you're opposed to 100% of all gun regulation, correct? How are you not the person I described who wants no kind of regulatory mechanism preventing criminals from getting certain kind or all guns?

You called me an extreme exaggerator for describing such a person but both you and the Turtle oppose the very concept of gun regulation.

Nope...Im not opposed to ALL gun regulations. I support mandatory minimum sentencing laws for criminals that use guns in the commision of violent crimes. I support incarcerating as accessories with the same sentence anyone that knowingly provides a gun to a criminal that is used in a violent crime.

I am in favor of laws that will actually make a difference. You on the other hand continue to bleat on about laws and regulations but cant show how ANY new laws will make a difference AT ALL.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Nope...Im not opposed to ALL gun regulations. I support mandatory minimum sentencing laws for criminals that use guns in the commision of violent crimes. I support incarcerating as accessories with the same sentence anyone that knowingly provides a gun to a criminal that is used in a violent crime.

I am in favor of laws that will actually make a difference. You on the other hand continue to bleat on about laws and regulations but cant show how ANY new laws will make a difference AT ALL.

That's not gun regulation. That's punishing criminals who abuse guns extra hard. That does not prevent anyone who shouldn't have a gun from getting it, so yes, after much hyperbole and whining it comes out I had you pegged right. You reject all regulation of guns and want no mechanism to prevent criminals from getting machine guns.

 

[VanceMack]

That's not gun regulation. That's punishing criminals who abuse guns extra hard. That does not prevent anyone who shouldn't have a gun from getting it, so yes, after much hyperbole and whining it comes out I had you pegged right. You reject all regulation of guns and want no mechanism to prevent criminals from getting machine guns.

:lamo

Again with the ridiculous fairy tale about machine guns in the hands of criminals.

:lamo

You bet...I oppose any gun 'regulations' that do nothing but attack law abiding citizens and gun rights. Its stupid to advocate for worthless laws, just as it is stupid to attempt to pass worthless laws.

Pick any of your ridiculous gun regulations. Waiting periods...proven ineffective. Background checks...again...PROVEN ineffective. Registration...PROVEN ineffective. Bump stock bans...frivolous...and again...PROVEN ineffective. Magazine capacity bans...proven ineffective.

I think you must be used to that...frivolous and proven ineffective.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

:lamo

Again with the ridiculous fairy tale about machine guns in the hands of criminals.

:lamo

You bet...I oppose any gun 'regulations' that do nothing but attack law abiding citizens and gun rights. Its stupid to advocate for worthless laws, just as it is stupid to attempt to pass worthless laws.

Pick any of your ridiculous gun regulations. Waiting periods...proven ineffective. Background checks...again...PROVEN ineffective. Registration...PROVEN ineffective. Bump stock bans...frivolous...and again...PROVEN ineffective. Magazine capacity bans...proven ineffective.

I think you must be used to that...frivolous and proven ineffective.

Glad that we cleared that misunderstanding up. I'll use you along with the turtle as the extremist example of what I'm talking about.

On the gun control question you sit far, far on one extreme of the spectrum, and everyone who isn't adjacent to you, you pretend is on the other extreme. Most Americans like me are in the middle and want basic controls to prevent criminals from getting guns they shouldn't. If we lived in your world with ZERO regulation, any hardened criminal could go to a gun shop and buy an m60, and it would be completely legal. Thank god we don't live in your dream society.

 

[VanceMack]

Glad that we cleared that misunderstanding up. I'll use you along with the turtle as the extremist example of what I'm talking about.

On the gun control question you sit far, far on one extreme of the spectrum, and everyone who isn't adjacent to you, you pretend is on the other extreme. Most Americans like me are in the middle and want basic controls to prevent criminals from getting guns they shouldn't. If we lived in your world with ZERO regulation, any hardened criminal could go to a gun shop and buy an m60, and it would be completely legal. Thank god we don't live in your dream society.

And yet...there you sit, stll bleating on about 'regulation' unable to show how any gun ban regulations promoted by the steady train of mindless anti gun activists and rat politicians will solve ANY problems.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

And yet...there you sit, stll bleating on about 'regulation' unable to show how any gun ban regulations promoted by the steady train of mindless anti gun activists and rat politicians will solve ANY problems.

You never asked me to explain any of that, you just told me how crazy I was for stating there are people who want NO regulation of any kind.

So without background checks and with all guns 100% legal, tell me how we prevent the criminal or terrorist from buying an m60. You dismissed that as total nonsense but I see no mechanism in your plan to prevent that.

 

[VanceMack]

You never asked me to explain any of that, you just told me how crazy I was for stating there are people who want NO regulation of any kind.

So without background checks and with all guns 100% legal, tell me how we prevent the criminal or terrorist from buying an m60. You dismissed that as total nonsense but I see no mechanism in your plan to prevent that.

I defy you to find a single time where I told you "how crazy I was for stating there are people who want NO regulation of any kind"

What I have said is I oppose stupid regulations promoted by stupid people knowing that they wont solve any problems just for the sake of stupid people advocating for and passing stupid laws.

 

[VanceMack]

You never asked me to explain any of that, you just told me how crazy I was for stating there are people who want NO regulation of any kind.

So without background checks and with all guns 100% legal, tell me how we prevent the criminal or terrorist from buying an m60. You dismissed that as total nonsense but I see no mechanism in your plan to prevent that.

As for background checks. Im pretty much OK with the current system. Hell...I have even proposed a 100% background check solution to cover private firearm sales that will ensure there is no gun registry database information. Its a win win.

Regardless...with the current system of 'regulations' guns were purchased WITH background checks in Parkland. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Sandy Hook. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Fort Hood. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Columbine. Guns were purchased WITH background checks in Arizona prior to the shooting of Gabby Giffords. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Aurora Colorado. Guns were purchased WITH background checks prior to the Las Vegas shooting.

In fact...law enforcement knows that MOST of the guns used by criminals in Chicago are being purchased LEGALLY...WITH background checks...by friends and family members with clean records.

So again...you advocate for regulations that do nothing...and you KNOW they dont solve the problems. Yet you would consider the expansion of background checks as an answer.

Sandy Hook.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

As for background checks. Im pretty much OK with the current system. Hell...I have even proposed a 100% background check solution to cover private firearm sales that will ensure there is no gun registry database information. Its a win win.

Regardless...with the current system of 'regulations' guns were purchased WITH background checks in Parkland. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Sandy Hook. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Fort Hood. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Columbine. Guns were purchased WITH background checks in Arizona prior to the shooting of Gabby Giffords. Guns were purchased WITH background checks at Aurora Colorado. Guns were purchased WITH background checks prior to the Las Vegas shooting.

In fact...law enforcement knows that MOST of the guns used by criminals in Chicago are being purchased LEGALLY...WITH background checks...by friends and family members with clean records.

So again...you advocate for regulations that do nothing...and you KNOW they dont solve the problems. Yet you would consider the expansion of background checks as an answer.

Sandy Hook.

Aha, so you actually do support gun regulations, so it's not a question of principle, just a question of magnitude. If you support background checks and even the limiting of some weapons (I assume), why do you demonize and exaggerate people who on principle want the same thing, just disagree with you a little on the implementation?

And no, I'm not taking your lazy Sandy Hook bait.