Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[rayporter]

ya all paying attention to the next big thing? any thing with a scope will be a sniper rifle.

 

[BjornF16]

Why an AR-15 for defense?

10 True AR-15 Self-Defense Stories - The Truth About Guns

"A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it." These AR-15 self defense stories are prime examples of times when the black rifle saved innocent lives.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

________

Even an FBI study concluded that the 5.56/.223 round is safer in a home defense situation when compared to other methods. You can read their full study and overpenetration testing here.

TFB DEBATE CLUB: The AR-15 For Home Defense - Point/Counterpoint

TFB DEBATE CLUB: The AR-15 For Home Defense - Point/Counterpoint - Luke and Doug square off on a common debate topic: should you pick the AR-15 for home defense

www.thefirearmblog.com

________

“Why would anyone need a 30-round magazine?” We’ve heard that familiar refrain repeated at nauseum. At least one Florida resident would disagree. On April 15, 2018, a Glen St. Mary resident awoke at 4 a.m. to a home invasion that was spurned by an apparent Facebook dispute. Seven masked and armed individuals forced their way into a mobile home where one of the residents was armed with an AR-15. According to reports, the resident fired more than 30 rounds during the event, resulting in one home invader being killed and others wounded. Five individuals were arrested in the attack and the resident who defended his home faced no charges. Home invasions are often carried out with multiple intruders. Would you really want to face seven armed individuals in a critical situation with only a 10-round magazine?

Self-Defense Stories of AR-15 Armed Citizens

Why do we need AR-15s and 30-round magazines? Constitutional rights aside, in these circumstances an AR-15 and a high-capacity magazine meant the difference between life and death for their owners.

www.gunsandammo.com

________

Home Defense: Why you should use an AR-15

Imagine this for a moment: It’s 4 AM and you’re resting quietly on your bed. Suddenly, you hear your door break open from a violent kick. You hear the

sofrep.com

________

Statements are made that the shotgun or pistol should be used because of the over-penetration problem with 5.56 carbine ammunition. This could not be further from the truth. If you conduct a little research you will find that numerous law enforcement departments, to include the FBI, have proven this to be false in most cases. The fact of the matter is that many of these bullets will penetrate numerous walls, but standard 5.56 loadings are the least of your worries when compared to pistol and shotgun fodder, which continue to take top honors in the category of over-penetration.

The AR For Home Defense: One Expert’s Opinion

Sergeant Major Kyle E. Lamb knows the AR better than anyone, here is what he thinks

dailycaller.com

That only took me a few minutes of searching, copy/paste...

 

[*zap*]

What, you too?

Sigh.....

H.R. 5717 was introduced this time last year. Still stuck in Committee. Kinda like H.R. 5103, which was introduced in 2018, went no where. Varying levels of state tax increases also went no where (Connecticut HR 5700, Illinois HB 1586, etc.)

Worry monger much?

worrymonger? I just posted what I 'heard' as something that I heard. Now I hear something different from you......I heard something else....

I have no doubts that 'they' will try this or something like it soon.

 

[Hoodie]

I think my point was, because of the shit storm created by how the feds handled Ruby Ridge and Waco, the Bundy situation got handled differently.

Another poster here might have suggested a drone strike on those folks holed up. But obviously that would look awful, and that’s why something like that wasn’t done, because optics and politics are important to decision makers.

I said it before...I don’t think some future conflict would resemble anything like symmetrical warfare. Why would it?

And even if it did, there are plenty of examples of folks doing what they thought was right, well aware that it would lead to their deaths. I think that is a powerful deterrent in and of itself.

Yeah, I definitely didn´t read it that way. I would agree with your point that it was handled in a very different manner than Waco or Ruby Ridge.

Iḿ still not sure how useful it is for drawing conclusions about civilian resistance with firearms, but I suppose we don´t have much else to speculate with.

I think you could largely attribute the difference between how Malheur and Waco played out to an increased willingness on the part of the Branch Davidians to shoot at Federal Agents. I guarantee you that if the group led by the Bundy´s had killed four ATF agents right out the gate (which is what happened at Waco) Malheur would have played out far differently, regardless of optics.

 

[Billinsd]

There is a very small minority of people in this country who feel this way. So unless you plan on installing something other than a democracy, I don't think you'll get much support for your idea. Probably about as much support as those idiots who stormed the capitol on the 6th are getting right now.

Luckily part of that very small minority is a majority of judges on the supreme court.

 

[Billinsd]

I don't get that at all.

The 2nd Amendment was put in there for a well documented reason. I don't give two shits if someone thinks it's now an antiquated (or at least not currently relevant) reason. It's the law, it's a right, it's there. If you want to change it there is a clearly defined process to do that. Go get the votes and do it.

Amend the 2nd Amendment is what would need to happen. Luckily it's REAL HARD to do. Sadly both sides ignore and/or stomp over the Constitution regularly to suit their needs. That's the big worry now with the Biden Administration. Hopefully, there will be LOTS of flags on the field. Hell, hopefully many of the unconstitutional restrictions we have in California will be pushed and reversed by the Supreme Court?

 

[Billinsd]

You're wrong dude.

He could not be more wrong.

 

[sunooastspotter]

We're dealing with the same shit up here in Canada. They banned anything they consider an assault style weapon but don't have a formal definition

We've got a case going to the supreme Court as it is against our charter of rights and freedoms.

 

[Billinsd]

Oh but you do. You have already allowed your rights to be "infringed." Or are you fighting for the right to own nukes?

Nukes aren't arms, didn't people explain this before? Arms are firearms. We should according to the 2nd Amendment own any type of firearm, however the 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon and we cannot. I'm not saying it would be good if there was no regulations on firearms, however I do say there is too much now. Way too much.

 

[BjornF16]

We're dealing with the same shit up here in Canada. They banned anything they consider an assault style weapon but don't have a formal definition

We've got a case going to the supreme Court as it is against our charter of rights and freedoms.

How long have they been banned?

How long has the court case been going?

Any links to Canadian news stories on this?

 

[Billinsd]

He may support guns but he is fine with doing away with public lands. "Texas has 2% public lands and if you ask most Texans that 2% too much." T. Cruze.
I can't figure out why some sportsman will get behind a politician because they are pro 2A but will completely ignore there other policies.

Ted is my guy! He is a through and through Conservative. Few completely ignore politicians they adore, the few policies they don't like. They tolerate them. Ted like other true Conservatives believe the Federal Government shouldn't own as much land in the west as they do. They believe in small Federal Government and the ginormous Forest Circus and BLM goes against that. They don't believe that is what was intended by the Founders and it wasn't. The Lousiana Purchase changed all that, because it was so huge!! I agree with the founders and the Conservatives. However, I don't want the majority of Western federal land transfered either, because I use it and want my children too.

 

[sunooastspotter]

How long have they been banned?

How long has the court case been going?

Any links to Canadian news stories on this?

Check out the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights. They link to good content for the ban and are the ones that organized the latest injunction.

Home

Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

firearmrights.ca

Here's a link to the latest version of the banned firearm list: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html

The way they are looking to deal with it is a buy back program and they gave hired IBM to investigate and design how that would work.

Least to say, their justification of safety is complete bullshit as 99% of gun crimes happen with smuggled firearms.

 

[BjornF16]

I feel like this is a large room with a bunch of bickering and many separate conversations....blow the air horn, get everyone's attention

"Shall not be infringed" is not hunting, is not recreation, it means you have the right to own any weapon that is made (extreme point i know) but is what it meant. Match the government power, one guy with an RPG matches one government employee with an RPG. One civilian with an Abrams tank matches one government employee with an Abrams tank.
You run the risk of a civilian being slightly off their rocker and not using these weapons appropriately...but i also don't trust the government …probably trust a civilian more actually.
So yes H.R. 4332 is an infringement as is many others. We have been flirting with this for a while and it needs to come to a halt or we all give it up...time and bullets will tell

There is a very small minority of people in this country who feel this way. So unless you plan on installing something other than a democracy, I don't think you'll get much support for your idea. Probably about as much support as those idiots who stormed the capitol on the 6th are getting right now.

Luckily part of that very small minority is a majority of judges on the supreme court.

First, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. It's a nit pick, but there are important differences.

Second, I'm not sure we can count on a "majority" of SCOTUS justices right now (which is one reason we really needed a second term for Trump, imho). Roberts has been leaning left recently with some really idiotic stances, like Obamacare penalty being a tax.

Third, Dems are calling for stacking the Supreme Court. There is historical precedent to this call in FDR, who threatened to stack the court in 1937 because he didn't like their rulings, particularly on his New Deal. While that proposition failed, it is still considered a "successful" move in that the Supreme Court started ruling differently and in support of his initiatives. I would note that US v Miller (NFA of 1934 challenge) decision occurred in 1939 (with a "cowed" SCOTUS).

How Democrats Could Pack the Supreme Court in 2021

Their base is already calling for a radical next move. Would they do it?

www.politico.com

When FDR Tried It, Court-Packing Backfired Big Time

Increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to further your political agenda isn't a new idea. That doesn't mean it's a good one.

thefederalist.com

 

[MattB]

worrymonger? I just posted what I 'heard' as something that I heard. Now I hear something different from you......I heard something else....

I have no doubts that 'they' will try this or something like it soon.

If only there was a means to quickly validate the veracity of things you "heard" rather than posting mis-information.

 

[Dos Perros]

If only there was a means to quickly validate the veracity of things you "heard" rather than posting information.

Dude “hears” so much — the last one that made me LOL pretty good was how the National Guard and law enforcement were mobilizing to enforce a strict stay at home order and how we better get out and get our TP now.

 

[MattB]

Dude “hears” so much — the last one that made me LOL pretty good was how the National Guard and law enforcement were mobilizing to enforce a strict stay at home order and how we better get out and get our TP now.

The full internet hasn't yet made it to podunk Kansas.

 

[BjornF16]

What, you too?

Sigh.....

H.R. 5717 was introduced this time last year. Still stuck in Committee. Kinda like H.R. 5103, which was introduced in 2018, went no where. Varying levels of state tax increases also went no where (Connecticut HR 5700, Illinois HB 1586, etc.)

Worry monger much?

(Nevada, this isn't a personal attack, so please don't take it as such. If I misinterpret your quote, let me know.)

This is a classic example of complacency.

If lawmakers only receive correspondence supporting gun control/bans, and don't receive any correspondence opposed, then what do you think they make of that?

noun,​

a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[Billinsd]

First, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. It's a nit pick, but there are important differences.

Roberts has been leaning left recently with some really idiotic stances, like Obamacare penalty being a tax.

Third, Dems are calling for stacking the Supreme Court. There is historical precedent to this call in FDR, who threatened to stack the court in 1937 because he didn't like their rulings, particularly on his New Deal.

Democratic Republic means we vote for people to represent us, versus the public voting on everything is my incomplete answer. Considering Robert's, there is still a majority. Court packing is a real concern. However, Mancin the Democrat Senator said he won't vote for it. The Supreme court is the BEST thing us Traditional Conservatives have as a bulwark now, I'm not going to fret about what ifs right now.

 

[204guy]

@Billinsd I didn't say anything about Ted. You need to fix your quote.

 

[BjornF16]

Democratic Republic means we vote for people to represent us, versus the public voting on everything is my incomplete answer. Considering Robert's, there is still a majority. Court packing is a real concern. However, Mancin the Democrat Senator said he won't vote for it. The Supreme court is the BEST thing us Traditional Conservatives have as a bulwark now, I'm not going to fret about what ifs right now.

"Democratic" being an adjective, describing "Republic", a noun.

So we are a Republic. Definitely not a true Democracy. The Founders were very specific in rejecting Democracy for a Republic.

Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it".

Constitution Classroom Resource Library | Constitution Center

Educational classroom resource library for the U.S. Constitution

constitutioncenter.org

Regarding Manchin...today he says he won't vote for court packing, but how long will he last under intense pressure?

Again, eternal vigilance. If no one contacts Manchin (and others) about opposing this (or any other bad legislation), then he'll feel as if supporting is "low threat".

Don't misunderstand me either...I'm not "worrying" about this (i.e. it is not keeping me up at night). However, I am concerned and won't take the chance of ignoring it as if it will just disappear on its own.