President Biden's Speech: Killed It! (My Opinion)

Hey guys! I just wanted to make a blog post about Biden's speech today, and I guess fully lay out my thoughts on this.

Hands down, the best speech of his entire career, not just as POTUS. I never have felt more pleased by a Biden speech, and it feels like he aged backwards a few years, because he didn't stumble in this speech at all. I'm very pleased that the Biden administration is taking charge on this angle. Biden's whole thing was running on bipartisanship, which is why he got elected. I think he was intending to bring back the sort of cooperation that he enjoyed as a member of the United States Senate for Delaware. And that's honestly admirable of him; he wasn't my choice for POTUS, but I was very much proud to have voted for him. But 'MAGA Republicans' are a whole different breed. The GOP largely still doesn't accept Biden's 2020 victory, and they defend everything Trump does under the sun, and pushes back at everything the Biden administration is looking to pass for the sake of blocking it. There was absolutely no excuse to vote against the PACT act, but about 20 or so Republicans switched their votes for the sake of blocking it, and only switched them back after they got severly ridiculed by the public, not limited to loads to veteran's advocacy groups. Examples such as this are why I am very glad Biden is taking the trail that he does, and that he did in this speech. You can't be bipartisan with this sort of ridiculousness! This is the crowd retweeting #PedoHitler on Twitter for Christ's sake. I think Biden is actually using his positon as POTUS properly here; as a tool to invigorate his base. Donald Trump, never shied away from using his position as POTUS to get his base going, and look at them; they love him for it. They love him to the point some went as far as committing capital crimes in his name. Biden was always generally mellowed out before this (a lot of the time, anyway), and that's very hard to unite around when we're facing such a big threat to our own democracy and our norms at the moment. We need to have a loud and proud leader that advocates for the right things in the right way, not someone who whimpers into the sunset. I think Joe's focus on an ideological committment to protecting democracy was the right way to frame this speech. This stuff isn't going to go away if we just ignore it; it needs to be addressed head-on, and with a heck a lot of spunk. This is the type of leadership that is going to get our people out to vote in the midterms!

Let me also say again that I am not mixing all Republicans into this. I very much respect all the Republicans/conservatives that do not parrot Trump's idiocy and his lies. It very much sucks that the moderate faction in the Republican party keeps shrinking, but I hope that these people keep going strong. I think this is a great move for the Biden administration, for the Democratic Party, and everyone in the USA that is deeply concerned about how Donald Trump has damaged our democracy in this country. I feel like we've finally got the direction that I've been pining for from this administration.

Heck yes, am I proud to have Joe Biden as my President. This is what I want to see from Joe, and even if the midterms don't go the way that I'd like them too, I hope he doesn't drop this for the remainder of his presidency.

 

[Ahlevah]

Wiki is useless. If you have an actual historian showing that labor in Italy wanted fascism, post it.

The connection between leaders of the Italian syndicalist movement and Italian fascism isn't a state secret, although the left would surely like to rewrite history.

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

The Roots of Italian Fascism: Sorel and Sorelismo on JSTOR

Jack J. Roth, The Roots of Italian Fascism: Sorel and Sorelismo, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1967), pp. 30-45

www.jstor.org

Edmondo Rossoni

Edmondo Rossoni (1884-1965) was the first leader of the Italian Fascist labor confederation (1922). A «convert» from revolutionary syndicalism, just as many of Fascism's early disciples, Rossoni remained a militant labor leader until Mussolini ordered the breakup of his union organization in...

books.google.com

 

[Hamish Howl]

No. The scary thing is that was the look they were going for. Most hateful, divisive Presidential speech in my lifetime. Only people cheering are the far left loons. Was he in that much danger of losing them that he had to give that speech?

Cry some more.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Even the NRA supported the original National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS).

Yet it is unconstitutional!

"Not be infringed" is absolute, and the NICS is not a trivially obvious restriction like banning serving felons from owning a gun.

Sex offender registers are also unconstitutional, btw. When someone has served the entirety of their sentence (including parole) ALL their civil rights should be restored.

What the fascist Democrats support is expanding it to create a national firearms registry.

SOME Democrats support that (I'm one) but there's far wider agreement among them on extending NICS to all sales, not just sales by FFL's.

Needless to say, Republicans don't support that. They bleat "unconstitutional" only when it's something new and popular. When it's already in place, and popular, then they don't care so much about the constitution. They have at least enough sense to know when a battle is lost.

Sounds fascist to me: "Who cares about the constitution! Taking your guns is the will of the people! And we have to stop the MAGAs who don't support the constitution!"

You support NICS? If yes, you're being hypocritical. And if no, you're breaking with the Republican party.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Well, at least you voted for Joe, there's hope for you.

Joe made a great speech, he always does, any idea that he's slipping or up to no good is only fake news.

Hopefully he's given up whispering into the mike. That creeped me out.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Did you mean 2017-2019?

Yes, good catch. They had their chance to repeal "unconstitutional" background checks under Bush also. But it would cost them an election, and they're not THAT serious about guns.

It must be said that Democrats also, have to work in the envelope between what they really want, and what is (or will become) popular with the people. "Leadership" of the people is quite limited, but we do sometimes see it: the ACA was unpopular at first, but popular by the end of Obama's term. Assuming the midterm goes badly for Biden, there may be enough legislated already to get a Democrat President in 2024. Ironically, Democrats might have a worse chance if they win a workable Congress this year, and go too far with legislation which doesn't have time to "bed in" ... ie become popular.

 

[Ahlevah]

Yet it is unconstitutional!

"Not be infringed" is absolute, and the NICS is not a trivially obvious restriction like banning serving felons from owning a gun.

It can't be absolute if certain classes of citizens, such as "serving felons,' are prohibited from owning firearms.

Sex offender registers are also unconstitutional, btw. When someone has served the entirety of their sentence (including parole) ALL their civil rights should be restored.

Personally, I would differentiate between, say, someone who committed statutory rape due to one party being legally underage and a violent sexual predator. We used to execute the violent guys. If they're let out of prison they should be thankful they're still alive, Part of their sentence is being listed in a registry. They really should consider moving to the Yukon or the Sonora Desert.

SOME Democrats support that (I'm one) but there's far wider agreement among them on extending NICS to all sales, not just sales by FFL's.

Dumb idea. Registries have historically been used as a means to confiscate firearms from the law-abiding public. And how are you going to enforce that? I have weapons I've owned for half a century. There is no record anywhere that I even own them, because they were private sales. What would prevent me from backdating a letter that I gave the weapons to my sons? Or are we going to prohibit the gifting of private property ex post facto?

Needless to say, Republicans don't support that. They bleat "unconstitutional" only when it's something new and popular. When it's already in place, and popular, then they don't care so much about the constitution. They have at least enough sense to know when a battle is lost.

This is a stupid generalization. There is nothing new about opposing a national firearms registry. And there is nothing new about prohibiting certain classes of citizens from owning guns.

You support NICS? If yes, you're being hypocritical. And if no, you're breaking with the Republican party.

It's not hypocritical because I differentiate between law-abiding citizens and loons, drug addicts or abusers, and felons. So, like Congress since 1968, I support keeping guns out of the hands of these people to ensure the public safety and tranquility. You want to smoke high-THC-content pot and risk getting into a drug-induced psychosis and going bonkers? Then no, you should not be permitted to own a gun. You made your bed. Now sleep in it. Go ahead and toke yourself all the way to Zombieland if you want.

Firearms Transaction Record

High-potency cannabis linked to increased risk of psychosis and addiction, study suggests

The potency of marijuana has been rising for nearly half a century.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[eohrnberger]

No. The scary thing is that was the look they were going for. Most hateful, divisive Presidential speech in my lifetime. Only people cheering are the far left loons. Was he in that much danger of losing them that he had to give that speech?

A very good question. Seems to me that Biden has to keep his 'far left loons' fauxrage up and agitated, now that the 'summer of love' riots have ended.

 

[eohrnberger]

I guess the idea was to capture the symbolism of Independence Hall, but someone dropped the ball when it came to what people would actually see, like in this perfect video screenshot.

So no one running the event bothered to take note of what it would look like.

 

[Ahlevah]

Do you believe Jan 6 was a day of expressing free speech and nothing else?

I guess dead babies and January 6th are the Democrat platform. because it ain't high gas, food, and rents; budget deficits; crime; fentanyl overdoses; Covid shutdowns; unity; millions of migrants pouring across our border; a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan; woke school boards indoctrinating kindergartners. Have I left anything out? Is it any wonder 70% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track?

 

[Jacksprat]

I guess dead babies and January 6th are the Democrat platform. because it ain't high gas, food, and rents; budget deficits; crime; fentanyl overdoses; Covid shutdowns; unity; millions of migrants pouring across our border; a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan; woke school boards indoctrinating kindergartners. Have I left anything out? Is it any wonder 70% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track?

Most Americans think the fascism of Trump is a profound threat to our safety.

 

[eohrnberger]

Most Americans think the fascism of Trump is a profound threat to our safety.

 

[Ahlevah]

Most Americans think the fascism of Trump is a profound threat to our safety.

With Democrats and their propaganda organs in mainstream and social media running full tilt to demonize tens of millions of Americans whose 'fascist" mantra is Make America Great Again, why would anyone be surprised?

 

[Jacksprat]

With Democrats and their propaganda organs in mainstream and social media running full tilt to demonize tens of millions of Americans whose 'fascist" mantra is Make America Great Again, why would anyone be surprised?

Wow, social media.

 

[Hamish Howl]

So Joe Biden isn't senile anymore, now he's Emperor Palpatine?

 

[Ug make hammer]

It can't be absolute if certain classes of citizens, such as "serving felons,' are prohibited from owning firearms.

Indeed! And if it's not absolute, then an infringement like gun owners having to register each purchase or sale with the government, is easily justified by the same rationale as background checks: keeping guns away from known criminals.

Personally, I would differentiate between, say, someone who committed statutory rape due to one party being legally underage and a violent sexual predator. We used to execute the violent guys. If they're let out of prison they should be thankful they're still alive, Part of their sentence is being listed in a registry. They really should consider moving to the Yukon or the Sonora Desert.

I would argue that "due process" means no more process than necessary, and if murderers don't need to go on a public registry then nor should sex offenders. However, it was just an example.

Dumb idea. Registries have historically been used as a means to confiscate firearms from the law-abiding public. And how are you going to enforce that? <snip>

It wouldn't work perfectly, any more than current background checks do. My point is that it would help, and "tyrannical governments might try to take my guns" is not a constitutional argument. Frankly, it's an argument for killing cops.

This is a stupid generalization. There is nothing new about opposing a national firearms registry. And there is nothing new about prohibiting certain classes of citizens from owning guns.

You misunderstand. A national registry would be new, regardless of how old the concept might be. Republicans oppose gun control even though it's popular, but once it's done they pretend they supported it all along. Because it's popular AND it's done already.

BTW, you never said whether you agree that background checks are unconstitutional. Surely it's not hard to say Yes or No?

It's not hypocritical because I differentiate between law-abiding citizens and loons, drug addicts or abusers,

No you don't. Maybe you think "loons" should be treated differently, but if so would you violate the medical confidentiality of EVERYONE to enforce that? Drug addicts who haven't been caught for any crime, are just as free to buy guns as "law abiding" people, and so are abusers who have never been convicted.

It would be a lot easier if owning a gun was a privilege, not a right, wouldn't it? Then like getting a driver's license, infractions could be made on their constitutional privacy.

Or maybe to hell with privacy? It's not an enumerated right ... but you would still have to infringe on the gun right by conducting warranted searches of medical history, bloodstream, or police reports.

and felons.

Sure, serving felons obviously. Or felons still serving parole (where it is legal to put restrictions about places, drug or alcohol use, and so why not guns too).

But where I am surprisingly more liberal about guns than you are, is that once a felon has served all their time (including parole) I can see no justification for infringing ANY of their rights, including gun rights.

So, like Congress since 1968, I support keeping guns out of the hands of these people to ensure the public safety and tranquility. You want to smoke high-THC-content pot and risk getting into a drug-induced psychosis and going bonkers? Then no, you should not be permitted to own a gun.

How tyrannical.

You made your bed. Now sleep in it. Go ahead and toke yourself all the way to Zombieland if you want.

Firearms Transaction Record

High-potency cannabis linked to increased risk of psychosis and addiction, study suggests

The potency of marijuana has been rising for nearly half a century.

www.nbcnews.com

And how would you enforce that, since you're opposed to gun registration? Just leave it to private sellers to decide for themselves if the customer is likely to smoke super-pot later that week? Or perhaps you expect private sellers to pay for a drug test, just to be good citizens, and knowing that it can only inconvenience themselves?

You have so much faith in law abiding citizens but you can't tell a law abiding citizen from a felon just by meeting them.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I guess dead babies and January 6th are the Democrat platform. because it ain't high gas, food, and rents; budget deficits; crime; fentanyl overdoses; Covid shutdowns; unity; millions of migrants pouring across our border; a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan; woke school boards indoctrinating kindergartners. Have I left anything out? Is it any wonder 70% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track?

"On the wrong track" is also what people opposed to jobs being offshore, or opposed to fracking, or opposed to the gap between rich and poor, would say. Only inflation and fuel prices outrank those as concerns.

Covid shutdowns are well in the past now, they're almost certainly NOT what people think of when they say "on the wrong track".

Don't let me stop you chanting though. I understand it gives right wingers a warm and complacent feeling to chant everything that's wrong with modern America.

 

[Ahlevah]

Indeed! And if it's not absolute, then an infringement like gun owners having to register each purchase or sale with the government, is easily justified by the same rationale as background checks: keeping guns away from known criminals.

No, it's not "easily justified." If the government wants to restrict a fundamental, individual right delineated in the Constitution, then it needs to pass "strict scrutiny."

I would argue that "due process" means no more process than necessary, and if murderers don't need to go on a public registry then nor should sex offenders. However, it was just an example.

If he got the opportunity to procure a lawyer and had a trial then he received "due process."

It wouldn't work perfectly, any more than current background checks do. My point is that it would help, and "tyrannical governments might try to take my guns" is not a constitutional argument. Frankly, it's an argument for killing cops.

And a national firearms registry would be unconstitutional.

BTW, you never said whether you agree that background checks are unconstitutional. Surely it's not hard to say Yes or No?

I think a "narrowly tailored" law designed to keep prohibited persons from possessing firearms is constitutional. The NRA agrees.

Maybe you think "loons" should be treated differently, but if so would you violate the medical confidentiality of EVERYONE to enforce that? Drug addicts who haven't been caught for any crime, are just as free to buy guns as "law abiding" people, and so are abusers who have never been convicted.

How can someone who's legally incompetent, a person who can't even sign a valid contract, authorize inpatient treatment? He can't. So I would have a court order him into a hospital. And if an addict is caught in possession of heroin or meth or coke, he is committing a crime. The state can give him a choice: go into rehab, or prison. And drug abusers/addicts are not just as free to buy guns as law abiding people. It's a felony to lie on a U.S. Department of Justice Firearms Transaction Record. And if you buy recreational pot from a dispensary there is a record kept of who you are. Just hope the ATF never comes up with a reason for wanting it.

It would be a lot easier if owning a gun was a privilege, not a right, wouldn't it? Then like getting a driver's license, infractions could be made on their constitutional privacy.

It would also be a lot easier for a government to deny citizens their freedom.

How tyrannical.

That's the law. You can thank Democrats for it.

And how would you enforce that, since you're opposed to gun registration?

You can't. Personally, I wouldn't sell to someone I didn't know. On the other hand, how would you prevent someone who shouldn't have a gun from getting one? A felon, who can't legally own a gun anyway, can obtain a straw buyer, or he can purchase a stolen gun off the street, or steal one himself. He's not going to buy a gun himself through a licensed dealer. He can't.

Just leave it to private sellers to decide for themselves if the customer is likely to smoke super-pot later that week? Or perhaps you expect private sellers to pay for a drug test, just to be good citizens, and knowing that it can only inconvenience themselves?

That's basically what a licensed gun dealer does. He does run a background check. But he also looks at the person and tries to determine if there's anything "off" about him, and if he does, he does not have to complete the sale. But it's often the case that people who abuse illicit drugs eventually end up getting caught. Once they're in NICS they'll likely be flagged and not be able to buy the gun.

You have so much faith in law abiding citizens but you can't tell a law abiding citizen from a felon just by meeting them.

True, and you can't change this basic fact: if someone wants to get a gun, they'll get one. No closing of a "gun show loophole" is going to stop him. That's fantasy.

 

[Ug make hammer]

No, it's not "easily justified." If the government wants to restrict a fundamental, individual right delineated in the Constitution, then it needs to pass "strict scrutiny."

Gun registration can pass that, if background checks do.

If he got the opportunity to procure a lawyer and had a trial then he received "due process."

That's an appallingly narrow definition. No holds barred after conviction? So we can torture prisoners now, or imprison them for life even if their crime is tiny?

And a national firearms registry would be unconstitutional.

Clearly you think that. You haven't said why.

I think a "narrowly tailored" law designed to keep prohibited persons from possessing firearms is constitutional. The NRA agrees.

The NRA opposed background checks (the Brady Bill) but now it supports them. They have all the ideological spine of a jellyfish.

How can someone who's legally incompetent, a person who can't even sign a valid contract, authorize inpatient treatment? He can't. So I would have a court order him into a hospital.

OK, so when you said "loons" you meant only the small percentage of them who are ordered into treatment. Maybe be more specific next time?

And if an addict is caught in possession of heroin or meth or coke, he is committing a crime.

Except that possession does not make one an addict. Again, you're using horribly imprecise terms and showing your lack of understanding of the law.

And even despite that, you're avoiding the question of how a citizen with a gun to sell is supposed to know who is an "addict" and who is not.

The state can give him a choice: go into rehab, or prison. And drug abusers/addicts are not just as free to buy guns as law abiding people. It's a felony to lie on a U.S. Department of Justice Firearms Transaction Record. And if you buy recreational pot from a dispensary there is a record kept of who you are. Just hope the ATF never comes up with a reason for wanting it.

You're saying that buying LEGAL pot means you can't buy a gun from a dealer? Sure about that?

So actually what. ATF almost never prosecutes anyone for being refused. AND STILL, you're fine with the private sales loophole which would allow anyone (criminal, adjudged mentally unsound, underage even) to buy a gun. What's it matter if that's legal or not, when it can't be enforced?

It would also be a lot easier for a government to deny citizens their freedom.

Not in the constitution. Try to be consistent.

 

[Ug make hammer]

(Continued)

That's the law. You can thank Democrats for it.

IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?

You can't. Personally, I wouldn't sell to someone I didn't know. On the other hand, how would you prevent someone who shouldn't have a gun from getting one? A felon, who can't legally own a gun anyway, can obtain a straw buyer, or he can purchase a stolen gun off the street, or steal one himself. He's not going to buy a gun himself through a licensed dealer. He can't.

Straw buyers would be in serious legal risk, with gun registration. At the very least, they would charge a significant markup (2 or 3 times.)

One criminal selling guns to other criminals (who could only otherwise get a gun) would charge a hefty fee, for the risk and also to cover the difficulty of getting a gun in the first place.

There's no reason to think guns are significantly different to other goods. If you increase the price to criminals, fewer criminals will be able to afford one. And far fewer people would already have a spare gun to sell, if they were only safe selling an unregistered gun.

That's basically what a licensed gun dealer does. He does run a background check. But he also looks at the person and tries to determine if there's anything "off" about him, and if he does, he does not have to complete the sale. But it's often the case that people who abuse illicit drugs eventually end up getting caught. Once they're in NICS they'll likely be flagged and not be able to buy the gun.

I would legislate a standard fee which gun dealers could charge, to 'arbitrate' private sales. Both the seller and the buyer would have to attend in person (though not necessarily at the same time) and the dealer would do both their background checks and the paperwork to reregister the gun from the seller to the buyer. They could also 'eyeball' the buyer, though I don't have much faith in that.

The reason for this is that, even if the background database was publicly accessible, some people would still prefer the paperwork be done by a professional.

True, and you can't change this basic fact: if someone wants to get a gun, they'll get one. No closing of a "gun show loophole" is going to stop him. That's fantasy.

Your fantasy is called "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." Plenty of other countries have effective gun control, including some where it is quite easy to buy a legal gun. Their worst criminals can indeed get a gun, but the vast majority of less violent criminals either can't afford one, are afraid of getting involved with more serious criminals, or are afraid of getting caught trying to buy a gun.

Would registration make a significant improvement in criminals getting guns? That is a more meaningful and practical question than "would registration make it 100% impossible for criminals to get guns?" If I thought for a moment that the latter was possible, I'd be for even more stringent gun control, for instance random audits of every registered gun owner.

 

[justoneman]

So Joe Biden isn't senile anymore, now he's Emperor Palpatine?

No he is more like a "Weekend at Bernie's" Emperor Palpatine.

 

[yankintx]

Well, at least you voted for Joe, there's hope for you.

Joe made a great speech, he always does, any idea that he's slipping or up to no good is only fake news.

Biden has turned out better than I thought, and my expectations where only as a place holder, to rid the WH of the previous occupant.

But he needs to get those approval numbers up, or he won't be given a second term.

 

[Ahlevah]

Gun registration can pass that, if background checks do.

First of all, gun registration schemes are illegal under current federal law:

“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and regulations

www.law.cornell.edu

Second, the constitutionality of a registration law would be subject to the same legal tests that would be applied if the state were attempting to deprive an individual of an aspect of any other enumerated right. And you referred to a presumed right to privacy. How about the 5th Amendment? The Supreme Court held that felons, loons, wife beaters, and drug addicts--the kinds of people we don't want possessing guns--can not be part of any registration scheme due to the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. It would be unconstitutional. Judging by the number of such people we have in this country, if all of them invoked the 5th Amendment there would be few guns to register, and most of those would never constitute a threat to anyone except an overbearing government.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)

Haynes v. United States

supreme.justia.com

That's an appallingly narrow definition. No holds barred after conviction? So we can torture prisoners now, or imprison them for life even if their crime is tiny?

Yeah, I realize that. If I detailed every preliminary hearing, Miranda warning, petition, motion, etc. criminals have dreamt up to avoid incarceration, I'd never complete my thought. So, to be clear, yes, I believe in due process. For example, I understand the logic behind red flag laws, but these laws can be easily abused by, say, an angry spouse with a grudge in a nasty divorce and custody battle, or a government that thinks MAGAs are an imminent threat to public safety because they espouse provocative political views. So depriving someone of an enumerated right to own and possess firearms without any evidence that they constitute an actual, imminent threat bothers me.

Clearly you think that. You haven't said why.

See above. ^^^

The NRA opposed background checks (the Brady Bill) but now it supports them. They have all the ideological spine of a jellyfish.

That is not true. This is an oft repeated lie in the media:

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker recently got the facts upside down in “The NRA’s flip-flop on federal mandates for states in gun background checks” by claiming that “after President Bill Clinton signed the Brady law in 1993, the NRA argued that the whole thing — including the NICS — should be struck down as unconstitutional." The NRA made no such argument. In fact, the NICS – the National Instant Criminal Background System – was the legislation that the NRA supported at its very inception and has consistently supported since.

NRA-ILA | NRA's Support for the National Instant Criminal Background System: Fact Checking the Fact Checker

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker got the facts upside down by claiming that after President Bill Clinton signed the Brady law in 1993, the NRA argued that the whole thing — including the NICS — should be struck down as unconstitutional.

www.nraila.org

What the NRA opposed were certain aspects in the proposed law, including waiting periods and record keeping requirements which could be used to constitute a de facto national gun registry. It's NRA lobbying that resulted in the current incarnation, the instant background check system we have today.

 

[Ahlevah]

OK, so when you said "loons" you meant only the small percentage of them who are ordered into treatment. Maybe be more specific next time?

I was referring to people who are mentally incompetent and shouldn't be making decisions that are normally legally enforceable.

Except that possession does not make one an addict. Again, you're using horribly imprecise terms and showing your lack of understanding of the law.

If someone is willing to commit a felony to get a high, if he's not an addict, then he's a moron. Regardless, illegal possession does make him subject to arrest, trial, and conviction. So we can give him a choice: get treatment, OR go to jail, assuming he's a non-violent offender and hasn't committed any other crimes where he would be subject to jail or prison time. But we as a society should remove ourselves from the mindset that possession of dangerous drugs like fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, non-prescription opioids, and methamphetamine is a victimless crime. It isn't.

And even despite that, you're avoiding the question of how a citizen with a gun to sell is supposed to know who is an "addict" and who is not.

Have you ever seen a meth addict? For the sake of argument, let's assume he can't. But neither can a licensed gun dealer. If someone is willing to commit a felony attesting to not being an "unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance" he doesn't care about lying to anyone.

You're saying that buying LEGAL pot means you can't buy a gun from a dealer? Sure about that?

As far as the federal government is concerned, there is no such thing as "legal pot":

Possession of marijuana is punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. For a second conviction, the penalties increase to a 15-day mandatory minimum sentence with a maximum of two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. Subsequent convictions carry a 90-day mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum of up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

Federal Laws and Penalties - NORML

Mandatory Minimum Sentence Penalty Details While District of Columbia residents have passed Initiative 71 legalizing…

norml.org

So if you lie on that ATF Form 4473, as I said, that's a felony.

So actually what. ATF almost never prosecutes anyone for being refused. AND STILL, you're fine with the private sales loophole which would allow anyone (criminal, adjudged mentally unsound, underage even) to buy a gun.

Correct. Lacking evidence to support the efficacy of closing this presumed loophole, I can not support it because of its potential for abuse in preventing or infringing upon the otherwise legal transfer of guns among immediate family members. Since you apparently support it, can you provide a credible, unbiased source that would indicate the percentage of criminals who obtain their guns in private transactions at gun shows? Personally, my gut says it's a solution in search of a problem, as in another "feel good" measure to demonstrate to the public that government is "doing something" to stop the "gun violence menace."

What's it matter if that's legal or not, when it can't be enforced?

Felons are legally prevented from owning or possessing firearms. But, like Sasquatch, there is no such thing as a drug dealer who isn't packing. The fun for him begins when he's caught as a "felon in possession of a firearm."

Not in the constitution. Try to be consistent.

Yeah, individual rights and liberties are mentioned in the Constitution, but the only thing that guarantees them is an armed populace:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787.

 

[Ahlevah]

IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?

According to our illustrious federal courts and paternalistic, progressive Democrats, it is. I, on the other hand, do not support the Gun Control Act of 1968. Yeah, I think it's an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment and the 5th Amendment's prohibition against compelling someone to engage in self-incrimination. But as it is the law, we should enforce it. So I've shown you mine. How about you? Is the GCA "common sense gun control"? A "reasonable first step towards returning us to sanity"? Is it constitutional?

Straw buyers would be in serious legal risk, with gun registration. At the very least, they would charge a significant markup (2 or 3 times.)

Then again, committing "gun violence" in the form of robbery or murder is a serious legal risk, too. I mean, isn't preventing violent crime the idea behind gun registration? Even with somewhat draconian penalties there doesn't seem to be any shortage of straw buyers pitching guns to criminals.

One criminal selling guns to other criminals (who could only otherwise get a gun) would charge a hefty fee, for the risk and also to cover the difficulty of getting a gun in the first place.

Yup, but, then again, being a violent criminal, say, a murderer, and commiserating with other violent criminals, is an inherently risky business. So charging a "hefty fee" for a presumably "untraceable" firearm is just good business.

There's no reason to think guns are significantly different to other goods. If you increase the price to criminals, fewer criminals will be able to afford one. And far fewer people would already have a spare gun to sell, if they were only safe selling an unregistered gun.

If you steal one, even if it's just from your brother's wardrobe or night stand, it's free. But, honestly, I've never seen a gun control supporter appear to advocate cheaper weapons for criminals.

I would legislate a standard fee which gun dealers could charge, to 'arbitrate' private sales.

So much for cheaper weapons.

Would registration make a significant improvement in criminals getting guns? That is a more meaningful and practical question than "would registration make it 100% impossible for criminals to get guns?" If I thought for a moment that the latter was possible, I'd be for even more stringent gun control, for instance random audits of every registered gun owner.

No. Criminals can not be required to register their guns, and even if they were they wouldn't. You're dreaming.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Have I left anything out?

When you're just making shit up I don't think that's possible.