ATF whistleblowers sound alarm on Biden admin proposal that effectively bans private gun sales: repo

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/at...effectively-bans-private-gun-sales-report.amp

This depending on outcome could possibly actually make me vote for Trump. God I just cringed. I won’t devote to that yet but I will most definitely say it may start to sway me. This rule would essentially do away with the second amendment all together. This would for sure make owning a firearm not a right but a government granted privilege.

It will do away with separations the founders and papers at the time of ratification spoke about concerning the second amendment. The Pennsylvania Gazette even said through tench Coxe writings that the federal nor the state governments have the power to restrict arms. The same paper also said that the American citizen is entitled the same sword and shield as a soldier.

This attack clearly is against the spirit of the second amendment as it was intended.

 

the democrat party is -for the most part-intent on banning private gun ownership

 

They would okay with it so long as it came with a federal registry and permits.

 

well they had that with machine guns and yet they still banned them

 

Nothing will ever be done about guns because there is nothing that can be done at this point. There are more guns in the United States than there are people. Having said that, guns aren't the problem. People are the problem.

 

the goal of many democrats is not to disarm criminals nor confiscate all guns but to destroy the open and lawful uses of firearms. the reason why is that they want to eliminate the anti gun control votes that have plagued the DNC since the 1960s. Democrat attempts to pretend they were doing "something" about crime without upsetting several main constituencies (that found "law and order" and "crack down on violent criminals" to be "racist or fascist) led to democrats adopting all sorts of stupid laws that had the (at the time) unintended effect of harassing lawful citizens. Those citizens-many of whom were union blue collar workers who normally voted democrat-often started voting against the gun control supporting Democrats (and some moderate RINOS). at that point, more spiteful gun control laws were adopted as retaliation. Gun control has harmed democrats in many close elections and the current goal is to kill off-by imposing costly harassment-recreational uses of firearms, competitive shooting, lots of hunting etc. They figure by doing so, people won't join gun clubs, the NRA, or other shooting sports promotors and will ultimately not have an opposition to gun control as a voting agenda

and of course, there is the less machiavellian reason-many lefties despise the culture of self independence that permeates the pro gun movement and many gun banners are motivated by a belief that pro gun voters are opposed to many leftist goals such as unrestricted abortion, the advancement of the gender confusion issue, the alphabet agenda, the radical animal rights and environmental extremist agendas etc

 

Well they can whine and moan and piss and complain and try to pass as many gun laws as they want. Won't make a bit of difference. Gun owners in The United States outnumber our entire combined military and law enforcement by 200 to 1, so confiscation is never going to happen either.

 

The post 1986 was a Republican

 

Already has and no one done a damn thing but make excuses

 

reagan signed the bill based on advice that 1) the GOP would lose the senate and the ability to pass the bill in the fall elections and 2) the hughes amendment would be stricken by the courts. His advisers were half right

 

Still… he signed it. But I understand that 1932 was a bad year for us being if that had not passed it would have solved a lot of this issue

 

you're reagan. a pro gun bill that you wanted passed, was about to pass. what do you do

 

Not signed jt

 

so the GOP loses the senate a few months later and the McClure Volker Firearms owner protection act dies. did you know the actual wording of the Hughes Amendment. Now if Reagan had been told by WH Counsel that the poison pill was most likely going to be stripped since it both violated the second amendment and it was improperly passed, would that change your opinion

DO you know what the MVFAOPA did? one of the things it did was to say alleviate a problem I used to encounter. The Eastern Collegiate Championships for shotgun events were usually held in New Hampshire. Prior to the MV act, the Yale shooting team had to give notice and get permission from the MASS. state police to drive through that leftist state even though the shotguns were locked in cases and unloaded. Failure to do so could lead to charges and confiscation of expensive target shotguns. Under the MVFAOPA, as long as the firearms were legal in CT (they were) and New Hampshire (they were) and unloaded, we couldn't be harassed by Mass. If you are flying from Ohio to say New Hampshire and you have a lay over at laGuardia and due to a cancellation, you have to take custody of your checked luggage while at a hotel, and you had a checked handgun in your bag-guess what, you could be arrested in NYC under the Sullivan law. No more under the MV act

 

the goal is not confiscation but ending or limiting hunting and other recreational uses by making it too expensive or too much of a hassle. they want to kill of the reason people join gun groups and gun organizations which they see as political enemies. Plus many gun banners hate gun owners for our perceived political and cultural views.

 

That’s all hypothetical

 

actually it's not. it is a classic environment where purists complain but would have resulted in a far worse environment for gun owners. You want to pretend people were not being arrested for traveling through deep blue states with guns legally owned where they started and legally possessed where they were ultimately going?

you also want to pretend that Trump's justices aren't any difference from Clinton/Biden/Obama Justices

 

That still happens. How about the scenario where people got arrested for owning a bump stock?

 

Yeah I know that this is an issue that seems to color your entire views on gun laws. Now personally I see bump stocks as silly wastes of ammunition created by an obviously unconstitutional law-the Hughes Amendment and the real blame goes to the 1934 NFA and the hughes amendment.

 

@Joe knows @Turtledude

Well gentlemen, just to add a little spice to this thread, I'll offer up a little debate. But first, a true story.

My wife wanted me to go with her to do the weekly shopping. But honestly, I really just didn't feel like going. I told her when she got home with the groceries I'd help her unload them all. Not good enough. I finally and went with her. The store was a large department store with groceries, clothes, hardware, furniture, garden center, and sporting goods. When we got there she told me she was going to the garden section to pick out some flowers before doing the grocery shopping. I silently groaned, knowing that she would spend a long time doing that (she loves gardening and flowers), and realizing that this shopping trip was now going to be twice as long as I thought it would be, and I thought I should have held my ground and stayed home. So as pleasantly as I could, I told her to go ahead, and I would just browse the sporting goods section and catch up with her later. We left the store maybe about an hour and a half or two hours later with flowers, a weeks worth of groceries, and my brand new AR-15 rifle. The background check was completed while my wife shopped.

I wish to tell you guys that I oppose any laws or regulations that substantially infringe upon the rights of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. And I do not believe that the background check done on me did that. And with private gun sales, all the buyer and seller have to do is run down to the local gun store and have them run the background check for usually around 20 bucks. This also does not rise to the level of an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in my opinion. And this way, the seller knows he's not selling to a convicted felon, someone who has been committed to a mental institution, or some other prohibited class of people, and the buyer knows that the gun is not listed as stolen.

In 2020, 300,000 gun sales were denied by the background checks. 42% were because the buyer was a convicted felon. You can see all the other reasons why people failed background checks in this link:

https://www.everytown.org/documents/2021/06/background-checks-denials-data-2020.pdf/

Having to pass a background check allows good citizens to transfer firearms to their new owners with a clear conscience, knowing that they have fulfilled their social responsibility not to transfer the firearm to a convicted felon, insane person, etc.

But my main argument is that I just don't see the background checks as being a substantial infringement of the right.

So load up those keyboards, guys. You're clear to draw and fire.

Seth

 

I don’t like the background checks. But let’s put that all that aside. This current issue is not just about background checks. It would force you to have one every time you transfer a gun. Secondly it would be essentially a registry. Let’s say they do a simple rule change to classify the AR as a machine gun like they did with the bump stock.

The bump stock ban was a confiscation or destruction order with no registry. How do you think it would have turned out or played out if they had a registry?

Secondly, this ends private ownership because it’s no longer a right but a permissive privilege. Like paying to borrow something from the government. It’s never really yours because it can change with legislation and can be robbed as easily, if not easier than the bump stock. It’s totally against the spirit of the constitution and founders.

 

how else can Republicans go after Hunter owning a gun?

Republicans are so anti-2nd

 

Republicans are not against prohibiting known drug addicts from owning guns, especially when they commit a crime and lie on an FFL transfer form.

If Hunter Biden was just a regular Joe he'd be sitting in prison over it..... But Democrats believe there are two sets of laws and one applies to citizens and Republicans and the other is specially reserved for Democrats.... Typically just the non enforcement of the laws

 

the problem is this-felons aren't going to do what you suggested
and without registration of all privately owned firearms, that cannot be enforced

and that is the main reason why the anti gun advocates want private sales checks
to push for registration. I dont' see the current system as an infringement but I don't see it as constitutional either due to the tenth amendment

but private sales checks -while sounding 'good' are both worthless and based on a sinister goal

few people who are denied a sale because they LIED on form 4473 are ever prosecuted
MOST of those denials are for decades old drug convictions

 

this is a hypocritical argument. What FatBack said is true