Deanimator
Member
A sitting member of Congress just threatened to NUKE the gun owners of America.I don't believe they are that stupid to try that with tens of millions of gun owners.
You have no idea just HOW stupid they are.
A sitting member of Congress just threatened to NUKE the gun owners of America.I don't believe they are that stupid to try that with tens of millions of gun owners.
That's EXACTLY what they want to do.FTF is a non issue as there is no way to regulate or enforce.
FTF is a non issue as there is no way to regulate or enforce...
So what's all the fuss about?
There should be a means of pre-qualifying gun buyers.
I couldn't have put it better myself. "universal background checks" without "universal registration" are an utter nullity.
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amend...ntrol-unenforceable-without-firearm-registry/
This is meant to fail so that it can be "fixed" with registration, which will facilitate bans and confiscation.
There's a reason why supporters of racially invidious gun controls and their fellow traveler "gun owners" won't tell you how Chicago implemented it's handgun BAN.
Here is why. Let’s say Bob owns an AR-15. He buys it at an FFL. Now let’s imagine a nationwide turn-em-in ban on AR’s is enacted. Let’s say Bob has decided not to comply with the law. The feds know that, at some point, Bob owned an AR. So they pay him a visit when he doesn’t turn in the gun by the deadline.
If there is no UBC that would require all FTF sales to go through an FFL, Bob simply says, “oh, I sold that some time ago. Used the money to buy a new putter. Want to see the putter? Anyway, I don’t remember the guy’s name, but he probably turned it in already.” At this point, the feds may not believe Bob, but they can’t prove much and Bob has not confessed to a crime.
Now, keep everything the same but imagine that a UBC banning private sales passed before the AR ban. If Bob says he sold the gun, he has just confessed to a crime. So he’s between a rock and a hard place. Her either produces/surrenders the gun, or he gets charged with violating the UBC.
That’s why it matters.
Pretty apparent now that some here don't believe UBCs to be a big deal.
The rest of us know better.
I just feel like we already have them.
And what ARE those "standards"?The goal is to limit gun ownership and ability to buy ammo only to those that pass certain standards.
The goal is to limit gun ownership and ability to buy ammo only to those that pass certain standards. The gun owners will have to store firearms firearms in manner that makes theft or falling into wrong hands extremely difficult. This will make us all safer and help curb gun violence in our society.
It's obvious that after tragedies in Nevada, Florida, Pennsylvania, ......things can not remain as they are.
I just feel like we already have them.
But of course the other side would never agree to such a thing because it negates the very purpose of the legislation, which is not to deter crime, but to deter LAWFUL firearms ownership, and to facilitate its future elimination.If the political winds blow and the rather stupid idea of UBC's comes about at the federal (or your state for example), as Alexander A says, the major way to blunt the effect is to exempt C&R holders and those with a state's concealed carry permit and that the federal (or state) law will override all state (local) laws regarding states and private sales via the commerce clause (via state preemption).
We need to separate the clearance of the person from information on the gun.
There should be a means of pre-qualifying gun buyers. If a person is qualified to buy a gun (by age, clean criminal record, clear immigration status, etc.), put a designator to that effect on his/her driver's license. If that status changes, recall the driver's license and issue a new one.
...
Why doesn't the pro-gun side loudly proclaim such a solution? We hear nothing about taking the initiative. Instead, it is always the antigunners that take the initiative, and our side is always playing on the defensive.
Cannot restate this enough.And they are 100% in control of the anti-gun cult. Without them, there is no movement. Nothing is going to satisfy THEM. Hence nothing is going to satisfy the "MOVEMENT".
But of course the other side would never agree to such a thing because it negates the very purpose of the legislation, which is not to deter crime, but to deter LAWFUL firearms ownership, and to facilitate its future elimination.
Even not using that logic there is no reason to pass any new laws. We have thousands and thousands of gun laws already on the books; the judicial system keeps coddling criminals, reducing sentences, releasing them early, etc so they can prey on folks again. New gun laws restricting even further the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from these vermin are not needed. What is needed is swift, strict incarcerationUsing that logic there is no need to pass any new laws.
Are they "smoked out" if the media never reports it?That is the reason it is a poison pill amendment--persuades the general public that gun owners are concerned about societal violence but want such laws aimed exactly at the sort that are already breaking laws to being with.
Those with ulterior motives are smoked out and will reject it. However, it would be hard for those folks to argue straight faced that people with permits are dangerous as they have already been through a greater background check than the average gun buyer with fingerprints, background check at the local and federal level, etc.