Biden say today in speech it's time to enact gun legislation : 2/14/2021
- Thread starter KillerFord1977
- Start date
Bassbob
Emissary
Which is exactly the same MO Handgun Control Inc. used 30 years ago. It isn't anything new. Clearly what they are banking on, after years and years of anti-gun politicians being voted out of office and losing national elections over their candidate fatally supporting gun control, is a tenet of the democratic party platform. They simply tell the big lie so often that people believe it. You remember, it's the old Nazi adage. I think Himmler said it first. Tell the lie so often it becomes the truth.
The "Interviewer" last night asked this horrible woman about the NRA and the lobbying power they had over politicians. She immediately responded about how the NRA is not as strong as it was due to internal problems, going bankrupt, etc.. But, she continued, there are throngs of Trump supporters who tend to be pro gun so they still have a fight on their hands. I was flabbergasted. She simply glossed over the fact that any decline in membership of the NRA coincided with the massive increase in membership to other pro-gun groups. To her it isn't at all about the will of the people. The will of the people is irrelevant. It's simply about having the political muscle to force an unpopular agenda down the throats of the citizenry.
I know it's real popular here and on other gun forums these days to dismiss the NRA because of WLP. I have said it here before and I will say it again. That is short-sighted and stupid. GOA and other groups are certainly worthwhile organizations to support, but not at the expense of the NRA's lobbying power. I promise you anti-gun politicians in purple districts are NOT afraid of GOA. If the NRA goes away, we are F'ed. Period.
uspatriot1960
Custom
The ONLY saving grace to this article and Biden's stated stance (I say "stated" because what he says and what he does are two completely different things) is that he is calling on Congress to make these decisions, and not issuing executive orders. The EOs would be fought in court, but at least there may be some pro-gun members of Congress who would vote against this. When it comes to Congress instituting new laws, they care more about their political future than anything else. I want to believe there are too many pro-gun constituents in most of these politicians districts to vote these proposals into law...
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
Here's a link to another of his directives .....
www.yahoo.com
And here's a quote from the article .......
“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”
In my limited and unlearned capacity of simple, country boy, I'll offer a couple of my simple concepts......
1st - Nothing about any of this is "common sense".
2nd - "background checks on 'all' gun sales" would require a BG check on my wife, son, father, brother, or other family member even if I wanted to gift my favorite deer rifle or competition handgun to any of them.
3rd - "banning assault weapons" would imply you/I/we accept that firearms such as the AR's are 'assault weapons' which I don't. They are nothing more than modern, sporting, semi-automatic rifles .... typically with a detachable magazine exactly like my Browning 30/06, semi-auto, hunting rifle..... And the AR's being the most commonly owned and used by the ordinary American citizen of any personal long gun in history. No more deadly nor dangerous than the Browning hunting rifle mentioned above.
4th - 'high capacity' magazines is a totally subjective term .... just what number makes it 'high capacity'? Most LEO's service weapons carry more than the 10 that is generally tossed around as the 'magic' number. So the question would become.... is more than 10 a terrible and dangerous thing to allow the public to have, and will LEO's be exempted from that number even after they're retired and no longer LEO's.
5th - and then this totally ludicrous one .... "eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.” It occurs to me that anyone who would even suggest this is lacking something in the 'common sense' department mentioned above, as well as any practical knowledge of the topic. Who in their right mind would suggest that any criminal or crazy misuse a firearm could be held against the manufacturer? Not to mention that no manufacturer that I'm aware of is in the habit of knowingly putting any 'weapons of war' on any street. Would that then also include holding GM liable for a drunk driver using Silverado to kill a family in a two vehicle collision? Or if some idiot puts his hand down on a hot stove or grill holding "Hotpoint" and/or "Webber" liable? Or in the really extreme, how about holding a silverware 'fork/spoon' manufacturer liable for someone getting fat? Holding any manufacturer liable for producing a defective product is one thing, but to hold any manufacturer liable for some numb-skull misusing or abusing a product is total asininity.
Biden Calls for Gun Control Legislation on Parkland Shooting Anniversary
President Biden called on Congress to enact sweeping gun control legislation on Sunday, marking three years since the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. A student murdered 17 people during the 2018 shooting in Parkland, Fla., and police officers who responded to the incident were...
And here's a quote from the article .......
“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”
In my limited and unlearned capacity of simple, country boy, I'll offer a couple of my simple concepts......
1st - Nothing about any of this is "common sense".
2nd - "background checks on 'all' gun sales" would require a BG check on my wife, son, father, brother, or other family member even if I wanted to gift my favorite deer rifle or competition handgun to any of them.
3rd - "banning assault weapons" would imply you/I/we accept that firearms such as the AR's are 'assault weapons' which I don't. They are nothing more than modern, sporting, semi-automatic rifles .... typically with a detachable magazine exactly like my Browning 30/06, semi-auto, hunting rifle..... And the AR's being the most commonly owned and used by the ordinary American citizen of any personal long gun in history. No more deadly nor dangerous than the Browning hunting rifle mentioned above.
4th - 'high capacity' magazines is a totally subjective term .... just what number makes it 'high capacity'? Most LEO's service weapons carry more than the 10 that is generally tossed around as the 'magic' number. So the question would become.... is more than 10 a terrible and dangerous thing to allow the public to have, and will LEO's be exempted from that number even after they're retired and no longer LEO's.
5th - and then this totally ludicrous one .... "eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.” It occurs to me that anyone who would even suggest this is lacking something in the 'common sense' department mentioned above, as well as any practical knowledge of the topic. Who in their right mind would suggest that any criminal or crazy misuse a firearm could be held against the manufacturer? Not to mention that no manufacturer that I'm aware of is in the habit of knowingly putting any 'weapons of war' on any street. Would that then also include holding GM liable for a drunk driver using Silverado to kill a family in a two vehicle collision? Or if some idiot puts his hand down on a hot stove or grill holding "Hotpoint" and/or "Webber" liable? Or in the really extreme, how about holding a silverware 'fork/spoon' manufacturer liable for someone getting fat? Holding any manufacturer liable for producing a defective product is one thing, but to hold any manufacturer liable for some numb-skull misusing or abusing a product is total asininity.
I agree with you 100%. The problem is the other side doesn't live in a "common sense" kind of reality. It's all about power and wealth. My parents were [old school] democrats and would be appalled at what the other side has morphed in to. Those that nowadays identify with and support (vote) the current "other side" are wearing blinders and in denial as to where this nation is headed under the current regime. Just my two cents.Here's a link to another of his directives .....
Biden Calls for Gun Control Legislation on Parkland Shooting Anniversary
President Biden called on Congress to enact sweeping gun control legislation on Sunday, marking three years since the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. A student murdered 17 people during the 2018 shooting in Parkland, Fla., and police officers who responded to the incident were...
And here's a quote from the article .......
“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”
In my limited and unlearned capacity of simple, country boy, I'll offer a couple of my simple concepts......
1st - Nothing about any of this is "common sense".
2nd - "background checks on 'all' gun sales" would require a BG check on my wife, son, father, brother, or other family member even if I wanted to gift my favorite deer rifle or competition handgun to any of them.
3rd - "banning assault weapons" would imply you/I/we accept that firearms such as the AR's are 'assault weapons' which I don't. They are nothing more than modern, sporting, semi-automatic rifles .... typically with a detachable magazine exactly like my Browning 30/06, semi-auto, hunting rifle..... And the AR's being the most commonly owned and used by the ordinary American citizen of any personal long gun in history. No more deadly nor dangerous than the Browning hunting rifle mentioned above.
4th - 'high capacity' magazines is a totally subjective term .... just what number makes it 'high capacity'? Most LEO's service weapons carry more than the 10 that is generally tossed around as the 'magic' number. So the question would become.... is more than 10 a terrible and dangerous thing to allow the public to have, and will LEO's be exempted from that number even after they're retired and no longer LEO's.
5th - and then this totally ludicrous one .... "eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.” It occurs to me that anyone who would even suggest this is lacking something in the 'common sense' department mentioned above, as well as any practical knowledge of the topic. Who in their right mind would suggest that any criminal or crazy misuse a firearm could be held against the manufacturer? Not to mention that no manufacturer that I'm aware of is in the habit of knowingly putting any 'weapons of war' on any street. Would that then also include holding GM liable for a drunk driver using Silverado to kill a family in a two vehicle collision? Or if some idiot puts his hand down on a hot stove or grill holding "Hotpoint" and/or "Webber" liable? Or in the really extreme, how about holding a silverware 'fork/spoon' manufacturer liable for someone getting fat? Holding any manufacturer liable for producing a defective product is one thing, but to hold any manufacturer liable for some numb-skull misusing or abusing a product is total asininity.
Exactly! There's many Democrats and Independents that aren't voting Democrat in the future because of the current Democratic hoopla until they possibly get down to planet Earth. Not everyone who's of any political persuasion is blind.