Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[Goatboy22]

Yup.

But there really is more to the story.

1. The FOPA was originally very good legislation as its primary purpose was protecting Gun owners traveling between states, due process, etc.

2. It was backed by the NRA

3. Literally, in the middle of the night, Democrats snuck an amendment onto the bill which banned autos. The vote was taken by voice, the democrat running the show declared the “ayes have it” even though it was reported that it was obvious they didn’t. Objections calling for roll call vote were rejected. The amendment passed.

4. Reagan signed it

See https://www.usacarry.com/full-auto-ban/

As an aside, please refrain from the personal attacks on this thread. I want this to be an opportunity for civil discussion and learning, not jabbing at each other. Thanks.

Sorry! My 4th or 5th post on Rokslide and I'm accused of a personal attack, or were you referring to someone else? I thought it was a legit question....no wonder I sat on the sidelines for so long!

 

[Lou Sid]

To anyone on the fence. This is not about hunting!! This is about your rights. I know it's hard for some to comprehend but read the 2nd and understand it's true intention. Our forefathers didn't create this so we could shoot a deer in October. They created it as a series of balances and checks to help keep government in line.

Lol yup cuz if we all have ARs then the citizens can defeat the military. Wait, wouldn't they just mobilize tanks, drone strikes, tomahawk missiles, etc and wipe us all out? I never got the argument that it's to keep govt in check. Maybe in 1800 it kept em in check but not today.

 

[BjornF16]

Sorry! My 4th or 5th post on Rokslide and I'm accused of a personal attack, or were you referring to someone else? I thought it was a legit question....no wonder I sat on the sidelines for so long!

Lol...no, I’m sorry.

it was a general statement and certainly not directed to you. I should’ve been clearer.

Again, apologies

 

[Laramie]

Lol yup cuz if we all have ARs then the citizens can defeat the military. Wait, wouldn't they just mobilize tanks, drone strikes, tomahawk missiles, etc and wipe us all out? I never got the argument that it's to keep govt in check. Maybe in 1800 it kept em in check but not today.

You assume the military is united against citizens in such a situation. That is not the case sir. The military is made up of you and me.

 

[BuzzH]

I follow you but that wasn't their publicly advertised agenda. Maybe that's my problem... I still try to take people at their word. Trying hard to keep an open mind.

Sure, I agree.

But I dont recall Reagan having an advertised anti-gun agenda but he fought like crazy to pass the Brady bill and had a clear anti-gun past. He also signed on with Ford and Carter to help Clinton get the AWB passed.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have beaten him up for his agenda and given him a pass for it just because he was "our guy". But, that's largely what happened.

Same with Obama and the 2 good bills he signed that were not even close to his advertised gun regulation agenda. Praise of the good pieces of gun rights expansion, and beat on him for poor anti-gun regulation. Its perfectly acceptable, and proper to do both.

Seems to make sense to me, to look past the letter behind the name and look at what they actually do. Don't make excuses for bad behavior and let them know, but don't disregard good behavior either, and let them know when you agree with their legislation. Good legislation is good legislation no matter who it comes from. Crap legislation is crap legislation no matter who it comes from.

That's my only point.

 

[Smithb9841]

You obviously didn't read the court order nor did you read the proceedings. The California Department of Justice cannot prosecute the law... period. There is no pending stay.

Please.. please... just stop.

Can you or can you not purchase a magazine in California with a capacity over 10 rounds? Are they on the shelf in gun stores? I live in California been to many gun stores the answer is you cannot and yes there was a stay order. If you know of a gun store selling 30 round mags for my AR in California shoot me a PM i live in California and will go pick a couple up!

here is a quote from the article I will link
Until further proceedings in the courts, the stay on the injunction issued by the district court remains in place," his office said in a statement. "The Attorney General remains committed to using every tool possible to defend California's gun safety laws and keep our communities safe."

Federal court throws out California's ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office said it is reviewing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

www.google.com

 

[BjornF16]

Lol yup cuz if we all have ARs then the citizens can defeat the military. Wait, wouldn't they just mobilize tanks, drone strikes, tomahawk missiles, etc and wipe us all out? I never got the argument that it's to keep govt in check. Maybe in 1800 it kept em in check but not today.

It wasn’t just to keep the government in check, although that was a primary reason.

It was also so that the entire population would be knowledgeable and prepared to defend their homes, communities, state and country in case of attack.

Other stated reasons included hunting, fowling, etc., but those were secondary.

But what I find interesting is how the mindset has changed since US v Miller regarding what was protected by 2A and the purpose of 2A.

 

[Goatboy22]

Lol...no, I’m sorry.

it was a general statement and certainly not directed to you. I should’ve been clearer.

Again, apologies

Thank you, gaining some new perspectives here!

 

[BjornF16]

Sure, I agree.

But I dont recall Reagan having an advertised anti-gun agenda but he fought like crazy to pass the Brady bill and had a clear anti-gun past. He also signed on with Ford and Carter to help Clinton get the AWB passed.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have beaten him up for his agenda and given him a pass for it just because he was "our guy". But, that's largely what happened.

Same with Obama and the 2 good bills he signed that were not even close to his advertised gun regulation agenda. Praise of the good pieces of gun rights expansion, and beat on him for poor anti-gun regulation. Its perfectly acceptable, and proper to do both.

Seems to make sense to me, to look past the letter behind the name and look at what they actually do. Don't make excuses for bad behavior and let them know, but don't disregard good behavior either, and let them know when you agree with their legislation. Good legislation is good legislation no matter who it comes from. Crap legislation is crap legislation no matter who it comes from.

That's my only point.

Criticizing Reagan is fair game. He signed FOPA.

However he balked at signing and was encouraged to sign by NRA because of the important protections for Gun owners .

Regarding Brady Bill...the man was suffering from dementia and likely didn’t comprehend fully what he was signing. I give him a pass.

Regarding “fight like hell”, my understanding was he only signed a letter of support. (and be careful, that phrase is obviously a call to violence and insurrection )

 

[BuzzH]

I follow you but that wasn't their publicly advertised agenda. Maybe that's my problem... I still try to take people at their word. Trying hard to keep an open mind.

I guess to maybe help clarify my point. Think of our politicians as kids or dogs.

If you only beat on them when they do wrong, and never praise them when the do good, how do they know the difference?

Conversely, if all you ever do is make excuses and praise them for any behavior, they think they never do anything wrong, even when they do.

I think we need to send crystal clear messages to all...with no ambiguity.

I'm out...

 

[Lou Sid]

Dont worry folks, if biden takes all our guns, trump will get elected in 4 yrs and give em back. Then in 2028 a demo will win and we'll lose all our guns again,

You assume the military is united against citizens in such a situation. That is not the case sir. The military is made up of you and me.

Right, just saying that no amount of arms we can bear will protect us from uncle sam if uncle sam gets serious.

 

[Rokbar]

Sure, I agree.

But I dont recall Reagan having an advertised anti-gun agenda but he fought like crazy to pass the Brady bill and had a clear anti-gun past. He also signed on with Ford and Carter to help Clinton get the AWB passed.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have beaten him up for his agenda and given him a pass for it just because he was "our guy". But, that's largely what happened.

Same with Obama and the 2 good bills he signed that were not even close to his advertised gun regulation agenda. Praise of the good pieces of gun rights expansion, and beat on him for poor anti-gun regulation. Its perfectly acceptable, and proper to do both.

Seems to make sense to me, to look past the letter behind the name and look at what they actually do. Don't make excuses for bad behavior and let them know, but don't disregard good behavior either, and let them know when you agree with their legislation. Good legislation is good legislation no matter who it comes from. Crap legislation is crap legislation no matter who it comes from.

That's my only point.

Reagan fought like crazy for the Brady Bill because Brady took one to the head from a .22 revolver to protect Reagan. I remember getting out of school early in 3rd grade when that happened. Obama and 2 good gun bills are oxymoron's! As stated before protect the 2nd!

 

[brsnow]

Well this has solved many issues. Good thread.

 

[ghostmoney]

Right, just saying that no amount of arms we can bear will protect us from uncle sam if uncle sam gets serious

Have you not been paying attention the last 19 years in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? Or How about Afghans vs the Russians? Maybe you can atleast remember the rice farmers in Vietnam.

 

[Traveler]

Seriously?

I’ve seen much worse in threads here at RS arguing over best rifle manufacturer, model, cartridge, bullet, etc...

There will always be “that guy” wherever you go...nothing to see here, move along

Well, 3 pages later China, Reagan’s dimentia, abortion and tomahawk cruise missiles entered the thread, so...yeah. Seriously.

 

[Shraggs]

They are not going to take them away right away, they are going to make it unaffordable to own them first. Then they are going to restructure laws, to make a lot more individuals with Any misdemeanors in the past or future and such to not lawfully own them. They are going to whittle away at our freedom a bit at a time. Until the group that can afford and is “ able” to own them is so small they won’t have to worry about such a small group of armed citizens being able to protect our selves from our own government, at which time our second amendment will be destroyed. It’s pretty obvious our government wants total control of us, without fear of us being able to protect our selves and our rights. We will not be “ free” when they are done. Look at the control China and Russia has over there citizens,( total control, and they know they can’t fight back) that is exactly what they want here. And the only thing standing in their way is our guns, and its going to be a PRIORITY to get them out of their way.

With the majority here and excellent post from OP

early some made mention that dems don’t often get this radical stuff done, or some dems need the sportsman hunter and 2a proponents to be relected, etc.

My real fear, honestly they have a formula for winning any election. IMO it’s perfected and targeted. I just don’t see a path where in two years a majority sweeps congress - I see radicals winning most any election. There are no current state legislature addressing election laws. What fear do they have about implementing this list... none in my mind.

they radicals/dems/libs/new progressive whatever are truly 5 moves ahead. This list represents some amazing opportunities to de-arm and fits there style. No infantry going door to door, but now we have precedent for unfounded allegations. Truly shrewd. I know my neighbors, and who’s politically different than I, and they know I have guns. So, what they can place a call and complain that I wasn’t wearing a mask but am carrying a gun...

I respect those here not fully on board, but I see the next few years as uncharted and I don’t believe rhetoric and pandering is at hand. There’s a bigger agenda. Heck we have elected officials seriously talking about filing charges against their peers without evidence of planning the January 6 break in. Many examples of Legal hypocrisy with regard to constitutional law and these gun issues are no exception…

 

[SirChooCH]

What bills are they? I'd like to check them out

Bills and Resolutions -- GovTrack.us

Find legislation in the U.S. Congress.

www.govtrack.us

HR 127 worst one, HR 130, HR 121, HR 125, HR 30, HR 137

 

[5MilesBack]

As part of the decision, the majority (who ruled for the government) stated that:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Given their logic on that ruling, then fully automatic weapons and everything the military has at their disposal SHOULD be fully legal and available to ALL CITIZENS.

 

[5MilesBack]

Bush didn't sign it into law Obama did...why the phobia to admit that?

Laws don't "give" us our rights, the government doesn't "give" us our rights, and the Constitution doesn't "give" us our rights. The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the government from taking away our rights.......and in the case of the 2A.......from even infringing on them.

So Obama's signature didn't miraculously "give" us anything that we didn't already have to start with.

Even a 5 year old understands "infringement", why can't grown adults understand it as well? It's like telling that 5 year old that he has a right to play with all of the toys in the room, and then later coming in and telling him........"well, maybe not this one.......we're going to not allow you to have this one toy". He's going to understand infringement immediately.

 

[USMC-40]

Well this has solved many issues. Good thread.

multiple posts by you in this thread complaining about this thread. If you don’t want to read it, don’t (it’s called ‘freedom’ - I’m assuming you don’t fully understand this based on your posts).