NRA torches Biden admin for plan to change rules for gun buyers, sellers

So?

Violates the constitution.

I really have no clue what you think you just proved

 

On the list of this country’s top problems, guns aren’t one of them.

So what’s your realistic solution?

 

In what context do you think the LAPD was referring to free speech? Were they trying to protect it or did they use code words? Hard to tell in LA.

 

I know the Constitution well. I said those amendments are there NOW... and they are. I don't live 1865 or 1920... I live in the here and now. Those amendments are here NOW.

What's your problem?

 

Because you think the border is more important than gun violence?

No.

The U.S. is the Western world's champion for gun murders and the incredible number of innocent people killed each year in mass shootings.

As such, every other advanced country on this planet cites the US as an example not to be followed, and is proof that the proliferation of guns is causing enormous damage to the social fabric.

 

"Just to be clear", most of those laws already exist. It is illegal for a felon to possess a gun, period. IF that law could be and was adequately enforced, felons would not have weapons. The same law applies to many other conditions that indicate the person might present a risk. People who won't obey laws cannot be regulated with laws. People who regulate themselves with good standards to not need to be regulated with laws. Those laws become harassments of destruction of freedoms- but fail to produce the results you think they will, because they don't affect the people causing the problems. AKA= It's barking up the wrong tree...

Possession of a gun on private property- is the choice of the people who own or operate on that property If they have a "No Guns" sign in the window, you break the law if enter with a gun, unless you are an officer in uniform. Every responsible gun owner is in favor of strong laws providing consequences for misuse of a weapon, usually in much stronger form than our current laws would be, even if they were enforced.
If it were up to me, firing a gun in a crime would be a capital offense, and the penalty would not take 20 years to apply. Once would nail you- You would not get a chance to do so again. Using one would be nearly as bad. Bad guys don't want to die either- they just think you don't have the guts to take them out, and they are usually right.

It is legal to own a cannon or a tank. It requires a special application and vetting process, and a $200 IRS tax stamp with a lot of restrictions. The only people who have such things are collectors, but they do shoot them occasionally. Take a look here: https://bigsandyshoot.com/ Ever hear of somebody holding up the 7-11 with a Howitzer? These things are fun, but not practical as weapons unless you are at war.

To illustrate how this part of the law is also irrational, take suppressors. They are in that same category, with a $200 tax stamp. A Suppressor is what you call a "silencer". In Europe, they are used, even required for two reasons; they make a hunter gunshot less intrusive to neighbors, and they lower the sound to the point it doesn't inflict immediate hearing damage on the shooter. But you probably think that it causes a gunshot to be actually silent, or perhaps make a "phhfft sound". Not true, never was.

If you understand the decibel scale, you probably know that 110 decibels is about like an average rock concert. The sound level of a centerfire cartridge (rifles, shotguns, pistols) is about 160 decibels, causing immediate hearing damage. A high quality suppressor will knock the sound level down about 30 decibels, or about 20 steps louder than a rock concert. Still very loud, but your ears aren't ringing or permanently damaged. And we do wear hearing protections at the shooting range- but those also close out sounds you need to hear, like range commands. Suppressors would solve that problem. So you buy one for probably more than what the gun cost, apply to the ATF, send them $200 and wait a year..... because of fear of people totally unaffected by your having a suppressor.

They are regulated not because they actually do what you think they do- but because people fear that what they saw in the movies was real, and someone could shoot them while they stood in a crowd and no body would hear the shot. Fear- not rational or reasonable, just fear. So we have a law against suppressors so you don't have to be so afraid of something that doesn't exist in the first place- a silent gun.

Part of what people fear is the perception of the AR-15 as an "Assault Weapon". In fact, it's a center-fire .22 caliber semi-automatic. The military didn't test them, never bought them or used them. They have a similar look to an M-16, but they do not have the same functionality. But looks generate fear. In people it makes them fear rapid fire and think they would allow killing a lot of people, where something like a bolt-action rifle would be less of a threat.

There's a competion for most all kinds of shooting. One is a competition for bolt action rifles, held in Europe, the competition is for speed and accuracy. The record holder put 39 shots into a 16" target at 200 meters (218 yards)- in ONE minute. With iron sights, no scope. 5-round magazines. IF that man had wanted to be a murderer, he could have killed 39 people in one minute from a safe distance, and in two minutes could be in his car driving away. He could also have thrown a gallon jug molotov concktail into a concert crowd and killed a lot more..... it is the PERSON who kills, not the weapon.

It's normal for people to fear what they don't understand. And it seems easier to regulate things than people who ignore regulation- but those are the people who abuse, people who get violent,, the ones we need to stop. Remove every gun on the earth- (Impossible, but lets pretend we could). The violent people will still be violent, they will still kill- just use different weapons.

Murder, including mass murder, didn't begin with the invention of gun powder. It began when a caveman lost his temper or was just mean, and found a rock. Later a club. Then a spear, then a bow and arrow, etc. After a while, it became obvious that to survive, you had to be able to defend yourself. People without defense- unless they are big, brawny bullies in the first place, are dead people when real violence comes their way. You ok with that?

 

He understands, you don't- and you are using data improperly to try and back it up.

 

Lots of people are dying, but the left only seems to care about one cause of death while ignoring, yes ignoring, the others. And if you look at the last picture, the gun death rate is substantially higher in the countries that have their people coming here.

If we eliminated gang shooting deaths, I wonder what our gun death number would be.

If we go strictly by body count, drugs are killing more people than anything else and the open border has a lot to do with that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate





https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

 

We're in a thread about guns.

So I'm talking about homicides by guns.

Are you going to deny that the US is the sad champion of advanced countries in this matter?

I couldn't care less if more people die from guns in Mexico, El Salvador or Brazil.

To justify the proliferation of guns here, the pro 2A are comparing the US to the worst s******** on the planet.

Compare the US with France, UK, Germany, Japan, Spain, Australia, Canada, Norway....

Does it scare you too much?

 

The border is definitely more important than guns here.. We don't have gangbangers. When someone smokes a joint here its front page news and looks like a crimewave (marijuana is still illegal here). Most people here own guns, hunt, compete and so forth. Maybe you should consider moving to a more law abiding locale.

 

Not for the vast majority of voters, of which the Conservatives aren't a part.

You live on your own little planet, detached from reality.

Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws

 

Let those who want more gun laws have them. Leave the rest of us alone. Its a state regulation matter, not a federal issue according to the Supreme Court (Heller v US).

 

You still haven't offered up a realistic solution. But let's say the government confiscated every gun in the country, then you can bet guns would come across the border illegally.

For the left, guns are an issue they can rail against for all of eternity because they know they'll never go away. They don't care about body count, they care about the votes they'll get from people who are indoctrinated against guns and not the issue that's killing far, far more people.

 

I said that the first step was to recognize that the proliferation of guns was a major problem in the US.

When you get there, there will be enough political pressure on the conservative side to pass tougher gun control laws.

 

I'll leave you alone when there are no more gun nuts mass shooters in this country.

 

What other Constitutional rights do you want to take away? Freedom of religion? Speech? Perhaps the very right to life? Oh, wait, you're already doing that with abortion. How about killing the right to protest? Wait, you're doing that with all the Jan 6 silliness.

You really hate the Constitution, huh?

 

What kind of gun control laws, what will they do and exactly how will they do it? You could say stop and frisk was kinda like a gun control law, but the left opposes it.

 

Look at what Canada, Germany, the UK, France and all the other civilized countries are doing.

 

Turning to a single currency? (except UK)
Going socialist? (except UK)
Raising retirement age?
Assisting Ukraine (a little bit)?
Imposing VAT (Value Added Tax)?

 

senile Joe and his scummy minions including (thank God he's not on the Supreme Court) Meritless Garland, have been beaten so many times by the courts, they want to salvage something with spiteful rule changes in order to turn peaceful people into felons. HE's had his slime filled ass kicked on the change by the ATF on the pistol brace rule. He has Bruen signaling a serious attack on unconstitutional gun control laws and he has to do something to slake his hatred of lawful gun owners.

 

what bothers you the most? that avid gun owners have long called "bullshit" on the scummy Democrats' schemes to pretend gun control laws actually restrict and impede Criminals? or is it that gun owners don't tend to support the leftist authoritarian collectivist agenda of the politicians liberals support? or is it cultural? we gun owners tend to make our own personal safety an individual responsibility--a concept that is anathema to those who want to be the children of a nanny state?

 

easy-FEDERAL FIREARM DEALERS are allowed by FEDERAL LAW to engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE--private sellers are NOT. since private sellers can not buy or sell guns across state lines, the federal government's INTERSTATE COMMERCE nexus does not exist

 

only if you have article one section eight authority and this supreme court has correctly refused to expand the commerce clause any further than it was pushed by the FDR bullshit. Since a private citizen cannot engage in interstate commerce concerning firearms, then guess what-he cannot be forced to do a background check by a federal government that doesn't have the constitutional authority to force him to do so

 

You don't have a serious gun problem-the problem that vexes you is that people who support gun rights vote against the scumbags you want in office. that is why people like you want to ban guns. Liberals hate the fact that groups like the NRA vote against welfare socialist authoritarians

 

A private citizen can’t sell a gun to someone in another state?