Gun control article on NY Times

[Daniel]

Oh, and you may want to get the parler app fast as Apple and Google are probably dropping it from their app stores shortly.

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Oh, and you may want to get the parler app fast as Apple and Google are probably dropping it from their app stores shortly.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/tech/parler-google-play-removed/index.html

too late if you are on android .. but I think there are ways to add the app to an android phone but not sure as I only had one android back when 4G first came out and they had it first.

[RED333]

37 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Oh, and you may want to get the parler app fast as Apple and Google are probably dropping it from their app stores shortly.

Silence is the first bit to choke us out!!!

[midtennchip]

I am no expert on politics, but I do see ways that 2A issues could be done through Executive Order or other, non-firearm laws.  Many people forget (or don't know) that the Bush Administration almost killed the ammo industry with a new OSHA regulation.  That reg was related to worker-safety and was pushed through executive rule-making authority (no legislation at all).  That's what I fear the most:  making firearms or ammo ownership so expensive that it is effectively a ban (without actually having to ban anything).

Further, I do believe some 2A legislative measures will get passed in the next 2 years.  I fully expect changes for background checks, internet and gunshow sales, etc. to be passed through Congress.  However, I hope the filibuster will prevent any major changes (i.e., bans on high-capacity mags, "assault weapons," etc.).  However, beyond just legislative action, they could, for example, change definitions of what constitutes being in the business of selling guns.  The ATF is already being sneaky with definitions, so they could probably stop most private-party sales by some definition changes.

[Omega]

9 minutes ago, midtennchip said:

I am no expert on politics, but I do see ways that 2A issues could be done through Executive Order or other, non-firearm laws.  Many people forget (or don't know) that the Bush Administration almost killed the ammo industry with a new OSHA regulation.  That reg was related to worker-safety and was pushed through executive rule-making authority (no legislation at all).  That's what I fear the most:  making firearms or ammo ownership so expensive that it is effectively a ban (without actually having to ban anything).

Further, I do believe some 2A legislative measures will get passed in the next 2 years.  I fully expect changes for background checks, internet and gunshow sales, etc. to be passed through Congress.  However, I hope the filibuster will prevent any major changes (i.e., bans on high-capacity mags, "assault weapons," etc.).  However, beyond just legislative action, they could, for example, change definitions of what constitutes being in the business of selling guns.  The ATF is already being sneaky with definitions, so they could probably stop most private-party sales by some definition changes.

First they will change the rules, then pass the bills.  First up is the filibuster. 

[Darrell]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

11 hours ago, Darrell said:

Are you okay with Twitter or Facebook deciding you shouldn't see a post because someone on their staff DEEMS it false?  I subscribe to neither, but I'd prefer to hear opposing viewpoints and decide for myself, thank you.

No one "deems" it false. It's false.  Spreading disinformation and misinformation is wrong.  Unfortunately it seems a huge portion of our population cannot identify either.

Are these statements true or false, Daniel?:   No one needs a high capacity magazine.  Weapons of war don't belong on our streets. The Second Amendment was written when people carried muskets. No one needs an assault rifle to hunt.  An AR-15 was designed to kill lots of people quickly.  Etc., etc., ad nauseam....

I would consider any of those "spreading disinformation." You might think all are chiseled in stone. My point, as I really believe you understand, is that I do not want anyone arbitrating the truth for me. I don't think you do, either.

[Erich]

13 hours ago, FUJIMO said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text

Not sure if this has been posted before. If so scrub it.

Not read every line yet but a quick overview doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling

Ammo and firearms licensing, capture of gun purchases, mandatory waiting periods and quantity / time limits.

All things that CA had, or exist in some form other blue states.  Having lived thru it, y'all should have concerns.

Biden's published plan, which includes assault weapons ban and its next steps are more problematic. Using the practice of bills 'common sense'  that first starts with limiting 'how' or 'how much' before moving on to bans and generational elimination controlling the 'what' you buy. Death of a thousand cuts.

I have watched the CA legal challenges play out in the 2 years after I left. With the 'freedom week' they got with normal cap mags to the latest assault weapon ban challenges. Y'all should really watch these as well. IIRC, SCOTUS kicked one case back years ago. I suspect they will have to deal with them at some point, but it will be years.

The proposed assault weapons ban and it's two options that follow (forced govt purchase or NFA/registration) are effectively a method to eliminate them in a single generation by potentially preventing them to be passed down depending on the 'NFA' provision. CA version make them all non transferable.  If they do that, I trust more will sell them to the govt depending on their age.

CA this summer has had more legislation to expand the definition of what constitutes 'assault weapon'. Makes sense as the next step to try to move almost everything into over time.

On the upside. The cosmetic features have been able to have workarounds allowing limited use. Look up 'featureless' build. They kind of suck, but allow you to to keep them until they revise language. The latest expansion of the definition though is meant to do some of that in.

 

[bersaguy]

I have my own opinion on what I have read so far and for the most part a lot of what I have read were also said when Obama was first elected and everyone said Obama would get the guns. Well it didn't happen but that time Joe Biden was VP. This time he is President and I am not as concerned with him as I am Harris. If Biden should not be able to continue as President do to health or any other reason Harris will become President and that does concern me. I don't think anyone really knows her views on anything yet!!....JMHO

[Erich]

10 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

 If Biden should not be able to continue as President do to health or any other reason Harris will become President and that does concern me. I don't think anyone really knows her views on anything yet!!....JMHO

I think many of us share that, as I've said here a few times our best bet is Joe to stay put. Harris was the CA AG during its most recent darkest hours and she was actively involved in the legislation.

Her views are actual public knowledge. She has plainly and clearly stated them when she was running before she dropped out. Not only is she fully on board with Beto's well known 2A hatred, she is against ALL private gun ownership. Should you be curious, its searchable. I don't think her campaign site is active anymore, but her anti 2A position is documented in various write-ups from that time.

Joe seems is a political opportunist kind of anti- 2A guy, while Kamala is a foaming at the mouth 2A hater.

My take on this is that Joe can insulate himself by using her as the instrument for much of it. The country is in a very different place compared to 2008. The events of 2020 should really illustrate how these seemingly insane things have gotten traction and developed momentum that has never been seen in the recent past. 

Don't get me wrong, I dont want or hope any of it does.  But in todays very strange environment, thinking it cant happen as its not happened before does not offer a great comfort level.

 

[Links2k]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

Join them.  Dan would love to be the next Zuck.  Did he mention he is an investor?

I saw an ad from Dan begging people to make the move, and I instantly knew there was money in it for him.  No thanks. 

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, Darrell said:

Are these statements true or false, Daniel?:   No one needs a high capacity magazine.  Weapons of war don't belong on our streets. The Second Amendment was written when people carried muskets. No one needs an assault rifle to hunt.  An AR-15 was designed to kill lots of people quickly.  Etc., etc., ad nauseam....

I would consider any of those "spreading disinformation." You might think all are chiseled in stone. My point, as I really believe you understand, is that I do not want anyone arbitrating the truth for me. I don't think you do, either.

Those are opinions.

[NwoSlave]

On 1/8/2021 at 8:27 AM, Darrell said:

I take a look at the NY Times website every morning, along with several other news sites, and I noted that this morning there's a front-page link to an article by Gabrielle Giffords, the former representative who was shot and now [figure]heads an anti-gun group. The article only touches on gun-control, but Giffords mentions Biden's "vision" for a safer America. Biden isn't yet sworn in, and already the anti-gun probes and preparation are beginning.  Democrats will shortly hold the presidency, the house, and the senate. Stand by for an onslaught against our Second Amendment right. Personally, I'm very concerned. 

ive given this a lot of thought as it has become clear that Biden was going to be president. First, there is good evidence we have more new gun owners than we did prior to covid. I have to believe they purchased them because they saw the need and hopefully still do enough to pressure their reps not to sign on to any new gun laws. Second, there are moderate democrat gun owners that have moderate democrat representatives to buck any new legislation.  no legislation was passed after sandy hook and if there was an event you imagine could have got something done that was it but nothing. so who is going to advocate for their reps to go along with new restrictions in a vacuum? the only people that used guns on wednesday were the cops and one of them shot an unarmed woman. good luck getting something passed. 

third, assuming the worst, gun confiscation by executive order, state legislatures and governors could tell the feds to pound sand and would eventually sue them, off to the scotus we go. a scotus President Trump has altered for a generation to a more conservative side. lastly, i have to believe local law enforcement and sherrifs/deputies would disobey such obvious unconstitutional orders and the ones that dont, well i wont cry over breaking some eggs to make an omelet . there are just way more of us than there are of them and the fed combined it would be disastrous and it would all have to fail and then you could see civil war with arms instead of this cold war of information we seem to be in currently.

TL;DR there are lots of "breakers" between the feds and them attempting a full scale gun confiscation/civil war. So lets just be vigilant we have been here before so dont freak out....yet

 

let me know what you think. like, subscribe and hit the notification bell. i watch too much youtube.

Edited January 9, 2021 by NwoSlave
additional thoughts

[A.J. Holst]

My opinion, the newest form of attack will come from gun violence is the next health pandemic.

They know how far Obama was able to go with EO, so that's about where they'll start.

Glad we got that bump-stock banning, 2A-hatin' Trump outta office.

[partypilot1]

Either the State of Tennessee will stand up to protect the citizens within its borders as a sanctuary state or you will be forced to NFA as least one item so you have ‘z papers’ when you go out to practice. 
The first is a collective strategy and the second is a personal 

[partypilot1]

https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6094
 

This is the most likely path 

Edited January 10, 2021 by partypilot1

[Darrell]

35 minutes ago, partypilot1 said:

https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6094

Thanks for that link, party. That's the first time I've read that particular article, though I've seen similar. That article is full of the kind of "facts" that I think the MSM will push. Further, I believe that it will become harder to argue against that kind of argument as social media giants have begun to censor views with which their owners disagree. I'm much more worried by what the media, including social media, is getting away with now than with who is in office. There's a reason why the Soviet Union, communist China, Nazi Germany, North Korea, etc., keep (or kept) such tight control over the media. 

[RED333]

Garbage in, garbage out

In computer science, garbage in, garbage out is the concept that flawed, or nonsense input data produces nonsense output or "garbage".

The principle also applies more generally to all analysis and logic, in that arguments are unsound if their premises are flawed.

 

This is what I have feared for most of my adult life. The commies will tell the masses what is right and wrong, the masses will believe it.

[deerslayer]

16 hours ago, NwoSlave said:

First, there is good evidence we have more new gun owners than we did prior to covid. I have to believe they purchased them because they saw the need and hopefully still do enough to pressure their reps not to sign on to any new gun laws.

So who are these people and what do they believe?  Did they buy guns because they didn't like the lawlessness they saw during riots last year?  Cops not responding/being told to stand down?  Are they now politically motivated to protect their right to self-defense and therefore gun ownership?  Some probably are, but many are probably not.  How many of these people were Democrat voters and will continue to be?

I have three Democrat acquaintances who have recently expressed interest in learning to use a handgun and buying one.  One of them is a Cal-Berkely graduate and is a pretty rabid left-wing zealot.  One even wants a carry permit.  Meanwhile they all voted Dem straight down the ticket and apparently plan to continue doing so.  Is there a chance their views/opinions can be changed?  Do they simply not fully understand the issues?  Or are they afraid they need to prepare for a perceived Proud Boys assault or something?  I don't understand their mindset or motivation, but all three want me to take them to the range.  What am I to do?  Donate my ammo to teach them to shoot?  My standing offer with the Cal guy is that we will go when he can get 200 rounds of factory 9mm.  I'm not sure how hard he has searched, but he hasn't found any.  On one hand, I wonder if a couple range trips can make a difference and "expand the tent."  On the other hand, I fear it is just a waste of ammo.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by deerslayer

[FUJIMO]

5 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

So who are these people and what do they believe?  Did they buy guns because they didn't like the lawlessness they saw during riots last year?  Cops not responding/being told to stand down?  Are they now politically motivated to protect their right to self-defense and therefore gun ownership?  Some probably are, but many are probably not.  How many of these people were Democrat voters and will continue to be?

I have three Democrat acquaintances who have recently expressed interest in learning to use a handgun and buying one.  One of them is a Cal-Berkely graduate and is a pretty rabid left-wing zealot.  One even wants a carry permit.  Meanwhile they all voted Dem straight down the ticket and apparently plan to continue doing so.  Is there a chance their views/opinions can be changed?  Do they simply not fully understand the issues?  Or are they afraid they need to defend against a perceived Proud Boys assault or something?  I don't fully understand their mindset or motivation, but all three want me to take them to the range.  What am I to do?  Donate my ammo to teach them to shoot?  My standing offer with the Cal guy is that we will go when he can get 200 rounds of factory 9mm.  I'm not sure how hard he has searched, but he hasn't found any.  On one hand, I wonder if a couple range trips can make a difference and "expand the tent."  On the other hand, I fear it is just a waste of ammo.  

I personally believe a lot of people who never owned one went out and got one for HD when the SHTF on the left coast and chants of defund the police turned into officials reviewing how much they could cut back in their city. Then we had a spell of destroying stuff all over the country for a bit. There are still people out there believing/expecting the PD to get there in time to save them from a burglary,home invasion, etc. MSM helped sell a lot of those guns whether they intended to or not. They froth up the fear factor same as they are doing now and will continue to do up until the 20th at least. In a negative for gun owners and 2a this time around.

To that though, I feel like a lot of those purchases could be called in fairly easily by the incoming administration by the ever popular "buy back" program, reaffirmation that your police will be there for you , and constant hammering on your intellect to infer you're a dumbazz for wanting to own a ar14 killing machine. Then much like after Vegas you'll have those that will post a video of them destroying their newly bought weapon in hopes it will spread like an STD ❤. 

I shutter to think how much privately bought ammo will be donated to local PD like clothes to a goodwill.

[Darrell]

24 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

 On one hand, I wonder if a couple range trips can make a difference

I think they can. I taught two women (friends of my wife)  to shoot when both had previously been anti-gun. Both had fun shooting at and popping balloons, like you'd set up for a little kid, and I think the heavy emphasis on safety impressed them both. If and when you take those new folks spend some time on safe handling before you load a round, make sure they understand how careful we "responsible gun owners" are, and give them a way to be successful in their first outings. Big targets, short ranges. And keep an eye on them! No matter how much you preach safety, a newbie is likely to need some reinforcement.

I'm not entirely convinced all those new gun sales went to new owners.  I'm pretty much always in the market for something interesting, and I can tell by the postings here that I'm sure not alone in that. 

[Erik88]

Anytime I can teach a new person to shoot, I do it. Their political beliefs don't matter. We need more people in our camp, not less. 

 

[deerslayer]

2 hours ago, Erik88 said:

Anytime I can teach a new person to shoot, I do it. Their political beliefs don't matter. We need more people in our camp, not less. 

 

I would normally agree, but times are different.  Ammunition and components are difficult or impossible to get with no improvement in sight.  Do you sacrifice 500-1000 rounds of your ammo to teach a few Democrats to shoot, a couple who are almost certainly lost causes?

Edited January 10, 2021 by deerslayer

[Erik88]

21 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

I would normally agree, but times are different.  Ammunition and components are difficult or impossible to get with no improvement in sight.  Do you sacrifice 500-1000 rounds of your ammo to teach a few Democrats to shoot, a couple who are almost certainly lost causes?

You and I have completely different opinions on what makes someone a lost cause. I have very good friends all over the political spectrum. Friends I would do anything for and they would do the same for me. To answer you question, you don't have to sacrifice 500 rounds of ammo. Take them shooting and bring a box of 50 rounds. I would spend more time making them practice handling the gun. Dry fire. Loading/unloading. Snap cap practice etc. One can adapt their methods of teaching to fit the current situation. 

BTW, I took a friend shooting recently who voted for Biden. He text me this morning and asked if I would accompany him to a gun show in a few weeks. Not everyone is a single issue voter. 

[Randall53]

On 1/8/2021 at 12:17 PM, phiferran said:

I think they will try whatever they can while not jeopardizing their control at midterm elections. I look for Biden to go after what he believes is easy and will not be drastic yet. If they maintain control at midterms, all bets are off at that point. 

That’s what Obama did and he was slammed for his failure to get more gun control passed. Some even felt that was his biggest failure. I think it will be top priority while they have the country by the curly hairs. 

[deerslayer]

36 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

You and I have completely different opinions on what makes someone a lost cause. I have very good friends all over the political spectrum. Friends I would do anything for and they would do the same for me. To answer you question, you don't have to sacrifice 500 rounds of ammo. Take them shooting and bring a box of 50 rounds. I would spend more time making them practice handling the gun. Dry fire. Loading/unloading. Snap cap practice etc. One can adapt their methods of teaching to fit the current situation. 

BTW, I took a friend shooting recently who voted for Biden. He text me this morning and asked if I would accompany him to a gun show in a few weeks. Not everyone is a single issue voter. 

Well maybe we have different opinions or maybe they are not so different.  I would definitely spend a lot of time with an unloaded gun first.  Since I am a competitive shooter and have trained a few shooters, I may be thinking in terms of how to make them proficient vs. a simple introduction, but someone going to permit class will probably need more than 50 rounds under their belt.  Whatever the case, I agree that a raging liberal who owns guns is better than a raging liberal who doesn't.  However, if I take them to the range and they continue to gladly vote for people who want you and me to be felons tomorrow because of what we have in our safes, I feel that my efforts were fruitless.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by deerslayer