Democrats go all in for gun control as top 2018 issue

[libertybele]

Quite frankly Jazz has proved to be liberal on some issues, with gun control being one of them.  I choose not to argue back and forth with someone who does not realize what's at stake, nor realizes that all of our other rights are dependent upon the 2nd Amendment.

Jazz is free to have his liberal opinions and liberal mentality.  No offense mean to Jazz whatsoever as he's been posting in this forum for quite some time and does at times bring some 'spark' to the debates.

[Jazzhead]

Perzackly, and the registration is why he's like a broken record on the need for insurance.  I don't think he gives a carp about the money part, I think he craves the back-door registration.  I'll go farther and suggest he knows it will mean eventual confiscation, that's how it's gone every time it's been tried.

Motor vehicle registration and insurance requirements have not led to the confiscation of motor vehicles.  Registration of firearms is not a precursor to confiscation - the Constitution protects against it.

Yes, I support registration and insurance requirements.  They make sense - it's the simple acceptance of responsibility.  But I've also been on record on a number of occasions as opposing most of the "feel good" crap pushed by the left, such as bans on "assault weapons" with "military style features".   Why?  Because such laws violate the principles of sound legislation - to be both efficacious and reasonably limited so as to not arbitrarily punish the good guys to get to the bad guys. 

 

[Jazzhead]

No offense mean to Jazz whatsoever as he's been posting in this forum for quite some time and does at times bring some 'spark' to the debates.

Thanks, LB.    As always, I appreciate all who read what I have to say, whether you agree or not. 

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

Exactly.  While our side is distracted by bump stocks and age limits the Dems are prepping legislation to ban ALL semi auto weapons...not just the mythical "assault rifle" but guns like my 1911 or my Sig P320 as well.

Those of us that worry about things like that are called hysterical by those that are pushing openly for registration by another name.

@txradioguy
New Jersey is moving fast - https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/new-jersey-gun-control-fast-tracked-for-wednesday-hearing/#axzz58LAVvTWB

A2761 Magazine Ban: Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
A2759 Ammo Ban: Prohibits possession of so-called “armor piercing ammunition” banning most common centerfire rifle ammunition.
A2758 Removes right to carry: Codifies regulations defining justifiable need to carry handgun.
A2757 Bans private transfers by requiring dealer background checks for all private gun sales.
A1016 Smart Guns: Establishes commission to approve smart guns; requires firearm retailers to sell smart guns.
A1217 Authorizes “gun violence restraining orders” which would lead to the seizure of firearms in situations where only an allegation has occurred without any conviction. This would all occur with little to no due process of the law.
A1181 Requires firearms seizure when health “professionals” think someone poses risk.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy
New Jersey is moving fast - https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/new-jersey-gun-control-fast-tracked-for-wednesday-hearing/#axzz58LAVvTWB

A2761 Magazine Ban: Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
A2759 Ammo Ban: Prohibits possession of so-called “armor piercing ammunition” banning most common centerfire rifle ammunition.
A2758 Removes right to carry: Codifies regulations defining justifiable need to carry handgun.
A2757 Bans private transfers by requiring dealer background checks for all private gun sales.
A1016 Smart Guns: Establishes commission to approve smart guns; requires firearm retailers to sell smart guns.
A1217 Authorizes “gun violence restraining orders” which would lead to the seizure of firearms in situations where only an allegation has occurred without any conviction. This would all occur with little to no due process of the law.
A1181 Requires firearms seizure when health “professionals” think someone poses risk.

Holy sh*t!

But then again I'm not surprised at that since New Jersey is one of six states without 2nd Amendment protections in their state Constitution.

[driftdiver]

Holy sh*t!

But then again I'm not surprised at that since New Jersey is one of six states without 2nd Amendment protections in their state Constitution.

@txradioguy
But remember @Jazzhead says they don't want to take away our guns.

[XenaLee]

And no one is advocating that you be denied the ability to protect yourself.  That's a straw man, and a canard. 

Actually.... YOU are doing just that.... by advocating for a mandated insurance on every gun I now own legally.  I wouldn't be able to afford to pay that insurance, which would mean I would (if I wanted to remain "legal") be unable to afford to keep my guns and would have to give them up (fat chance).  Just as your leftist agenda intended.

Law enforcement isn't perfect, and it's job really isn't to prevent crime but to track down the perpetrators.   That's simple reality - unless you want the police to be in your face all the time.   Suggesting that the failure to stop Nicholas Cruz represents a "diabolical leftist agenda" rather than an old-fashioned screw-up is head-up-your-arse bullshit.

The diabolical leftist agenda centers around that Promise program Obama and Holder put in place to protect "their people".  Catch a clue....if possible (not holding my breath on that, natch).

Those of us who seek efficacious solutions have proposed more than a few - including the adoption of laws permitting gun violence restraining orders that could, on the information available about the violent and anti-social Mr. Cruz, have denied him not only the right to purchase more guns, but allowed the police to take away the guns he already had in his possession. 

Again.... counting on law enforcement leftists to follow through on their obligations re: doing their frigging jobs is just asinine and stupid, at this point.  Not surprised that you are (apparently) counting on it.

Stop spouting your paranoid nonsense and get on board with responsible conservatives who seek real, effective solutions to the epidemic of gun violence in this country that are compatible with the RKBA.   

It's only paranoid if they are NOT out to get my guns.   And you, yourself, are proving every day here that they are indeed.  Thanks for that, at least (I guess).

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy
But remember @Jazzhead says they don't want to take away our guns.

@driftdiver that's what they always say...right before they take the guns away.

[XenaLee]

@txradioguy
But remember @Jazzhead says they don't want to take away our guns.

And lefties lie.  It's a constant in the universe.  Perhaps the only one...lol.

[Emjay]

@mystery-ak

This will get them more Independent voters who are parents.  The Independents are neither R or D, and vote for whatever they think is best for them at the time.  If this gun issue is still out front at the next Presidential election, the I parents will vote for gun control Dems.

If the Republicans can explain clearly the dangers of gun control and the total failure of any kind of gun control measures, they will be okay.

[SZonian]

"...including the adoption of laws permitting gun violence restraining orders that could, on the information available about the violent and anti-social Mr. Cruz, have denied him not only the right to purchase more guns, but allowed the police to take away the guns he already had in his possession." 

  Like the laws already in place that SHOULD have prevented Devin Kelley, the TX church shooter from obtaining or retaining firearms, but FAILED because the government FAILED to input his status into the database? https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/12/05/pentagon-failed-share-criminal-data-fbi-decades-ig.html 

Or the Lautenburg Amendment? 

Or the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act?

Like the state and federal laws that forbid convicted felons of even entering a gunshop, let alone attempt to purchase one, yet the prosecution rate is borderline criminal?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-against-illegal-guns/us-files-criminal-charges-fraction-gun-denial-case/

What about the Florida law that allowed the sheriff's dept. to confine Cruz for up to 72 hours and do a psych eval?
http://www.cchrflorida.org/question-and-answers-about-the-florida-involuntary-commitment-law-the-baker-act/

In other words, existing laws that are not enforced.

Just look at this "sweetheart" of a deal...
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/02/cleveland_mayors_grandson_plea_1.html

The failure of local, state and federal governments is responsible here.  Not the responsible gun owners who the anti-2nd Amendment folks are targeting through such "solutions".  An innocent person can be framed up under the "restraining order" concept you propose.  There is already a law in CA that does, but the only "protection" offered to those falsely accused is that the accuser may face a misdemeanor charge for lying under oath.  https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/19230-ca-governor-signs-new-gun-restraining-order-law

I fail to see how you can honestly expect people to accept even more laws in the face of the overwhelming evidence that shows enforcement of existing laws is so haphazardly complied with at the local, state and federal levels.

[SZonian]

Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/375659-dems-introduce-assault-weapons-ban

[driftdiver]

If the Republicans can explain clearly the dangers of gun control and the total failure of any kind of gun control measures, they will be okay.

@Emjay @Victoria33
Some will, most won't.  Thats why everyone has been afraid to touch gun control since the last bloodletting in Congress.

No, the only real danger is the propaganda machine otherwise known as MSM.  And if you watch facebook and twitter there is very real pushback on them.

[Jazzhead]

Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/375659-dems-introduce-assault-weapons-ban

Question:   Given that the GOP possesses Congressional majorities, should a vote be permitted on this bill?   Is its purpose to get Congressfolks running for re-election on record as supporting or opposing an "assault weapons ban"?   Would such a vote help or harm Republicans' chances?   

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Question:   Given that the GOP possesses Congressional majorities, should a vote be permitted on this bill?   Is its purpose to get Congressfolks running for re-election on record as supporting or opposing an "assault weapons ban"?   Would such a vote help or harm Republicans' chances?

The question presupposes that 'Republican' equates with 'Conservative' rather than 'Vote Whore'.

And there are too many known weasels, wafflers, and aisle crossing 'Bipartisan' Republicans to trust that such an act of Tyranny won't get to the floor for a vote.

Shall Not Be Infringed is all the vote that was ever needed, or to ever be ALLOWED.

[txradioguy]

Question:   Given that the GOP possesses Congressional majorities, should a vote be permitted on this bill?

No.   

Is its purpose to get Congressfolks running for re-election on record as supporting or opposing an "assault weapons ban"?

No such thing as an assault weapon.  So there's no need for them to be on the record for supporting something that doesn't exist.

Would such a vote help or harm Republicans' chances?

It would be extremely harmful to the party and the people that run in favor of further infringements on the 2nd Amendment.

[Cyber Liberty]

Motor vehicle registration and insurance requirements have not led to the confiscation of motor vehicles.

Your biggest strawman argument of the day.  When people can threaten to overthrow a government with their cars, they will be confiscated.  Only then can you intelligently conflate registration of cars with registration of weapons. 

[Cyber Liberty]

No.   


No such thing as an assault weapon.  So there's no need for them to be on the record for supporting something that doesn't exist.



It would be extremely harmful to the party and the people that run in favor of further infringements on the 2nd Amendment.

This evil a bill should never make it to a vote.  Any Republican that doesn't vote against every procedural motion.every rule, will have severe trouble come election time.  The Party had better find its voice on this, and  soon.  If they cower like a Broward County Deputy they deserve to lose, and we'll be digging in for a new civil war.

[txradioguy]

Your biggest strawman argument of the day.  When people can threaten to overthrow a government with their cars, they will be confiscated.  Only then can you intelligently conflate registration of cars with registration of weapons.

@Cyber Liberty and as its been told to him repeatedly...insurance and registration aren't required to own a car.

[txradioguy]

This evil a bill should never make it to a vote.  Any Republican that doesn't vote against every procedural motion.every rule, will have severe trouble come election time.  The Party had better find its voice on this, and  soon.  If they cower like a Broward County Deputy they deserve to lose, and we'll be digging in for a new civil war.

Exactly!!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Question:   Given that the GOP possesses Congressional majorities, should a vote be permitted on this bill?   Is its purpose to get Congressfolks running for re-election on record as supporting or opposing an "assault weapons ban"?   Would such a vote help or harm Republicans' chances?

Those are excellent questions, my friend.  My opinion is that gun control is a loser issue for rats.  Red state rats are more vulnerable than blue state republicans.  My guess is that the rats just don't have anything else to talk about that works better.  Since nobody cares much about immigration why not try something else.  Sorry we disagree, but I understand your argument that Parents are very motivated by the safety of their children.

I feel I again must commend you on your tenacity.  Unlike your embarrassingly numerous detractors, I can't read your mind and see your true motivations, but your words are very clear.  You sound like like some one who truly cares about your country, your fellow Americans, and our shared future.  I believe you express your opinion clearly, carefully, and honestly. 
Even when we disagree, I really enjoy your posts.  

[Cyber Liberty]

I feel I again must commend you on your tenacity.  Unlike your embarrassingly numerous detractors, I can't read your mind and see your true motivations, but your words are very clear.  You sound like like some one who truly cares about your country, your fellow Americans, and our shared future.  I believe you express your opinion clearly, carefully, and honestly. 
Even when we disagree, I really enjoy your posts.

Excuse me while I go projectile vomit for a while.

[driftdiver]

Excuse me while I go projectile vomit for a while.

@Cyber Liberty

You'll have to wait in line.

[roamer_1]

@Cyber Liberty

You'll have to wait in line.

That's not good for anyone... Except maybe the last guy...

[sneakypete]

Trump has already publicly stated that he's willing to offer a pathway to citizenship, so he's more than willing to oblige them.

@libertybele

WHY are  you people so ready to read the worst into that? How the HELL is it that you know HIS "path to citizenship" isn't being deported and then required to apply for a visa to come back?

The whole time he has been in office he has played "snatch the ball away" at the last moment after getting them all worked up with excitement and letting down their guard.  What is it that makes you so sure he isn't bluffing them on this,too?