Biden vs Gun Owners

[Pucky Freak]

Skip to 0:32

 

[stevejfarms]

It’s not cheap, a buddy of mine let his ffl lapse because he said he didn’t do enough business to pay for it. How much I don’t know...So you’re welcome for all the info.

 

[VikingsGuy]

To the best of my knowledge they want to include private sales in requiring background checks. I wanna sell you a gun, we go to an FFL and pay $10 or whatever to the FFL to run the check then I can sell you the gun. I’m not really opposed to that particular idea in theory even though it would inconvenience me a bit as most of the firearms I own were acquired through private transactions. At the same time it seems like it would be incredibly difficult to enforce without a gun registry of sorts which I’m not on board with at all.

While mere extension of current check to private party sales makes sense. The problem is with some bills they are so afraid of “new loop holes” that they include gun registries, prohibit loaning guns to a buddy at the range or on a hunting trip, even between a father and son. But some versions have avoided these over reaches. In the end the “title”/“label” of the bill is irrelevant, all the substance will be in the fine print.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Not a clue. I’m way out of my depth on that one.

Me either , kinda a pain in the butt to use a FFL for private sales, but I don't do them that often. I'm sure for folks who trade around a lot it sucks.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Me either , kinda a pain in the butt to use a FFL for private sales, but I don't do them that often. I'm sure for folks who trade around a lot it sucks.

In MN, it takes way longer to wait in line to deal with title on a car, boat or trailer.

Common sense says we should either check all sales or drop all checks - seems odd to leave such a broad option to skirt the system - we seem half pregnant on this one. I am fine either way, but like logic when we can find it.

 

[Stretcher_Jockey]

While mere extension of current check to private party sales makes sense. The problem is with some bills they are so afraid of “new loop holes” that they include gun registries, prohibit loaning guns to a buddy at the range or on a hunting trip, even between a father and son. But some versions have avoided these over reaches. In the end the “title”/“label” of the bill is irrelevant, all the substance will be in the fine print.

Absolutely. I’m definitely pretty reluctant towards any of it just simply because of how ineffective our government can be at getting things “right” no matter who is in charge.

 

[3855WIN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1360683060698767363

Domestic policy adviser Susan Rice and White House public engagement director Cedric Richmond met virtually with gun-control groups Wednesday, stressing their commitment to taking what they called “common-sense steps.” Activists are pushing for legislative moves, including an expanded background check bill, as well as items the president could pursue without the closely divided Congress, including appointing a senior aide tasked with gun-policy oversight and pursuing stricter enforcement of existing rules.

 

[duckhunt]

Guns are irrelevant. Without the new green new deal the world is coming to an end. LOL

 

[Pmacc60]

Have you done them or do you have to for private sales in Minnesota?

I've never done one with a private sale (MT).

Md just past a law this week to include private gun sales. One topic of debate was not one crime was committed in the past 5 years from a private gun sale.

 

[shrapnel]

Md just past a law this week to include private gun sales. One topic of debate was not one crime was committed in the past 5 years from a private gun sale.

It is already against the law to use a gun in committing a crime. It is time for people to realize that making gun ownership a crime, doesn’t solve the problem.

 

[Pmacc60]

It is already against the law to use a gun in committing a crime. It is time for people to realize that making gun ownership a crime, doesn’t solve the problem.

It’s that simple !

 

[Doublegunner]

I agree....look at the Obama administration...first 2 years, majority in the house, senate, supreme court yet no anti-gun legislation, no anti-gun executive orders. Obama did sign the law allowing guns in National Parks.

Obama was very concerned about getting a 2nd term. He didn't want to take on guns as that historically has riled people up. He was much more vocal about it in his 2nd term.

 

[Trial153]

It’s that simple !

Nothing is simple except for the simpletons on both sides that want to distill a multifaceted issue into their fantasy land reality.

The rest of us realize that this a is complex issue that takes thought and discussion to address both the preconceptions and reality of situation.

 

[Red Fox]

Making background checks for private sales is a good idea and if you want to do it that is fine. Making it a law is just unenforceable unless you have a gun registry as how do you know if a sale has taken place?

 

[Doublegunner]

I have always described gun ownership as a large rock and gun control proponents as walking around that rock with a hammer and chisel looking for the weak spot and then chiseling away till they can get it off until the rock is gone.. Right now ar 15's and the like as well as magazine capacities are the vulnerable areas. As gun owners we should be supporting the ownership of these firearms regardless of whether we own one because once the gun control groups have succeeded in removing them from the population they will move onto some other area of gun ownership and they will vilify it in an attempt to regulate it. This is a hunting forum so most of us use bolt, lever or single shot rifles with a few using autos. They will come for your rifle eventually though it may take time. Think "sniper rifle" vilification. We have to understand that gun control proponents don't want anybody to have a gun. They just can't say that publicly so they go after the areas that are politically weaker. Their attacks are far reaching from legal liability for gun owners and manufacturers to ammo restrictions, waiting periods and so on. All under the guise of "gun safely." We all need to stick together because those who would take your gun away will try to devide us and conquer.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It is already against the law to use a gun in committing a crime. It is time for people to realize that making gun ownership a crime, doesn’t solve the problem.

This is overly simplistic and doesn't really reflect how the law works in many areas.

Is possession 500 oxycontin illegal or legal? Is it only illegal when consumed?

How about heroin, legal until used?

How about a pipe bomb? Legal until set off?

What about buying bulk ammonia?

What about buying 10 boxes of allergy medicine?

Reasonable folks can disagree on the boundaries of the gun issue, but the "throw away" arguments just don't work and are poorly supported by logic.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Making background checks for private sales is a good idea and if you want to do it that is fine. Making it a law is just unenforceable unless you have a gun registry as how do you know if a sale has taken place?

I know that is what some people think, but there are many laws that have to "wait for post violation investigation". How do we know if somebody committed conspiracy if we don't tap all phones? How do we know folks don't drive drunk if we don't have breathalyzers on all car ignitions. How do we know if that 22 year old who just bought a case of beer goes and gives it to his 15 yo brother?

Many laws sit quietly on the books until a crime is committed and are identified in the post event investigation. No background check will prevent illegal gun sales, so if it is your intent to avoid altogether then we are kidding ourselves that either background checks or registry will change that. If we just want to slow down the process and catch the clueless and the unknowing via FFL checks in private sales, as is currently the system does with dealers, then a registry is not required.

However, if we want to put in a first step that will empower a future banning, collection and destruction of existing arms like Australia then of course this is a good thing. While I am open to some gun control steps, this is a complete NO GO for me.

 

[mevertsen]

I have always described gun ownership as a large rock and gun control proponents as walking around that rock with a hammer and chisel looking for the weak spot and then chiseling away till they can get it off until the rock is gone.. Right now ar 15's and the like as well as magazine capacities are the vulnerable areas. As gun owners we should be supporting the ownership of these firearms regardless of whether we own one because once the gun control groups have succeeded in removing them from the population they will move onto some other area of gun ownership and they will vilify it in an attempt to regulate it. This is a hunting forum so most of us use bolt, lever or single shot rifles with a few using autos. They will come for your rifle eventually though it may take time. Think "sniper rifle" vilification. We have to understand that gun control proponents don't want anybody to have a gun. They just can't say that publicly so they go after the areas that are politically weaker. Their attacks are far reaching from legal liability for gun owners and manufacturers to ammo restrictions, waiting periods and so on. All under the guise of "gun safely." We all need to stick together because those who would take your gun away will try to devide us and conquer.

This is occurring in Nevada in regards to hunting.

3 things on the Anti's agenda are:
Bear Hunt
Hounds
Coyote Contests

I have not seen much this year in regards to gun control bills, as the session is still young, but there have been public statements to push for the removal of open carry and registration in the state.

2 years ago, the Universal Background Checks passed here in Nevada, requiring back ground checks on all sales, dealer and private face to face. There are many exceptions to this law, including passing down to family, and for short term such as hunting, etc. There is a bill in the session right now to add that CCW holders are exempt from this requirement as well. With a democratic majority Senate and Assembly here, it is hard to say what will happen.

We have to stand up for all of it, or it will fall down. As was said above, they look for the week link. If there is someone in that group that maybe doesn't like that particular part, then that is a way in for the "anti" whatever the issue is.

An example is "I am for the 2nd amendment but don't like AR's." Those people are just what the Anti's want, because they can be turned and manipulated.

Same thing for hunting - "Do you like bear cubs being torn apart by mean, rabid dogs?" "Absolutely not!" "Well then you are against hound hunting!" Even though the anti's are taking one rare instance of something possibly happening, that may not even have to do with lawful hunting (say someone's loose dogs actually causing problems), it pulls at the heart strings of people. And people don't take the time to research or look into the actual problem, or the number of instances that something bad actually occurs.

Anyway, I could go on and on and on for days, and I am sure I could bore people with my scenarios and my disgust with people who claim to be inclusive, and demand it from everyone, but yet try to take stuff away from people all the time, but yet get upset when we call them hypocrites for pointing it out.

Have a nice day everyone!

 

[VikingsGuy]

I have always described gun ownership as a large rock and gun control proponents as walking around that rock with a hammer and chisel looking for the weak spot and then chiseling away till they can get it off until the rock is gone.. Right now ar 15's and the like as well as magazine capacities are the vulnerable areas. As gun owners we should be supporting the ownership of these firearms regardless of whether we own one because once the gun control groups have succeeded in removing them from the population they will move onto some other area of gun ownership and they will vilify it in an attempt to regulate it. This is a hunting forum so most of us use bolt, lever or single shot rifles with a few using autos. They will come for your rifle eventually though it may take time. Think "sniper rifle" vilification. We have to understand that gun control proponents don't want anybody to have a gun. They just can't say that publicly so they go after the areas that are politically weaker. Their attacks are far reaching from legal liability for gun owners and manufacturers to ammo restrictions, waiting periods and so on. All under the guise of "gun safely." We all need to stick together because those who would take your gun away will try to devide us and conquer.

I get it, but you could set up that same scenario for every legislative and regulatory issue for the last 200 years. Are you suggesting we make no progress on any of them ever? There has to be a way for society to move forward on solutions like clean water, violence, etc. We have to be able to grab shared low hanging fruit and easy wins without planting our feet in cement.

I think the path is not that we should draw an absolutist line, but that we should find ways to reject and discredit ideas that fail to acheive the intented objective or that serve primarily as "social/economic friction" that causes lawful citizens to forego their lawful rights. I draw parallels to the abortion question. If you believe it to be murder then vote to ban it outright or with acceptable qualifications like life of the mother, but don't pass zoning laws that make it so no clinic could ever be built, don't pass laws that try to make them prohibitively expensive to operate. What we are seeing is that on way too many issues the opponents have stopped making their primary case (knowing they can't win it), and instead try to kill the issue in question via a death of a thousand paper cuts. From nusance regulations (no online ammo sales or special zoning laws for abortion clinics), to increasing civil liaility for industries, to "safe harbor" cities and states refusing to follow binding law, to serial district court litigation that clogs up and confuses the legal framework, to reframing every issue as a "health issue" or an "education issue", etc. our democracy has ceased to be about the big issues and seeking appropriate outcomes, it has become full on guriella warfare - and I don't like it in the area of gun regulation, or immigration, or medical regulation, or abortion, or , or, . . .

 

[shrapnel]

This is overly simplistic and doesn't really reflect how the law works in many areas.

Is possession 500 oxycontin illegal or legal? Is it only illegal when consumed?

How about heroin, legal until used?

How about a pipe bomb? Legal until set off?

What about buing bulk ammonia?

What about buying 10 boxes of allergy medicine?

Reasonable folks can disagree on the boundaries of the gun issue, but the "throw away" arguments just don't work and are poorly supported by logic.

People also need to realize that there is no Constitutional provision protecting the ownership or use of opiates. The misplaced logic in defense of the attacks on gun ownership, cause much of the public to accept policies that are erroneously construed as necessary.