Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

[Free-Stater 101]

"PLEASE STAND BY"

Okay! It has come to my attention that we lack a single place to discuss this subject and since glance across this on MSN I think it worth bringing up.

House passes bills expanding background checks for gun sales, closing 'Charleston loophole'

***STATIC***

 

[Cherico]

The democrats completely and utterly ripped apart the social contract when they allowed antifa and BLM to riot, loot, murder and rape over a period of months.

The deal with gun control was simply this you do not need guns because the police will protect you, the police over a period of over 5 fucking months proved they do not give a shit and let people be murdered in the street. We clearly need guns because when the chips are down the police will not bother to protect us.

 

[Chaos Marine]

You know, there's an increasingly accurate comparison of the actions of the democrat party to another particular political party. From around the 1940s, with a certain socialist viewpoint.

Attempting to get rid of the police. The use of extreme sexual degeneracy (promoting it instead of supressing it this time). Rigging the electoral process in their favour. Preventing citizens from owning personal firearms. The use of political correctness to silence the opposition. Book burning. The use of BLM/Antifa like "they" used the brown shirts.

The more you think about it, the more blatant the comparisons start to become.

 

[BlackDragon98]

You it's going to only get worse when they try to take away your right to bear arms.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao are classic examples.

 

[Sailor.X]

I am very much against Gun Control. Long ago my family kept the KKK from brutalizing us by having Civil War........... Surplus guns handy to shoot them if they even dared try to attack us.

 

[BlackDragon98]

I am very much against Gun Control. Long ago my family kept the KKK from brutalizing us by having Civil War........... Surplus guns handy to shoot them if they even dared try to attack us.

The KKK is the militant arm of the Democratic Party, so no surprises there.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

The KKK is the militant arm of the Democratic Party, so no surprises there.

You mean used to be. They got replaced by BLM some time ago when the dems found them more useful, from there the Klan has pretty much been rogue.

 

[prinCZess]

A government which does not trust its citizenry with the same kit as it issues to its infantryman or infantry-specialists in the military is a government which the citizenry cannot trust.
More ideally, the citizenry have access to the same (or comparable) military equipment used by their government at level beyond the average infantry kit. Though at that point there is cause for the government to know where those tanks, jets, artillery-pieces, battleships, etc. is and/or who owns it for the sake of emergency preparedness and potential employment in service to the community during times of crisis--see, for example, the militia system that Switzerland employed with rifles only in this case scale it upwards for tanks, jets, artillery-pieces, battleships, etc.

Registration of small arms, waiting periods, training requirements, restrictions on carry, and associated items may have some argument to be made for them in being well-intentioned. Positive intentions cannot outweigh the harm such measures do directly, or harmful manners they can be harnassed by corrupt government agents, restricting the availability and practicality of citizens right to arms and, by extension, self-defense.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I'm generally pro-gun-rights but I'm not opposed to background checks as a principle. Some people legitimately and legally shouldn't have guns and double checking that before handing a gun over is sound practice.

This specific one is going to be a problem. We already had the law without this "loophole" and government officials abused it by never finishing the background check and thus denying firearms because they were never quite done doing the check even months later. That's why the so-called loophole was created in the first place, to make agencies do their job and perform the background checks in a timely manner.

Given that a background check is basically just looking at a database and checking for X disqualifications (felony record, open warrant, illegal immigrant, etc.) it should be the kind of thing that is completed in moments normally anyway.

 

[f1onagher]

The current bill is a flagrant attempt to create a gun registry. At this point, I'm frustrated enough to suggest a law criminalizing gun registries and imprisoning anyone who attempts to enforce them.

You mean used to be, they got replaced by BLM some time ago when the dems found them more useful, from there the Klan gas pretty much been rogue.

The klan is three FBI agents and the town drunk at an AA meeting. The only reason the klan hasn't been completely wiped out is because they can't arrest the remaining members without tripping over a thousand entrapment cases.

 

[Wargamer08]

I'm generally pro-gun-rights but I'm not opposed to background checks as a principle. Some people legitimately and legally shouldn't have guns and double checking that before handing a gun over is sound practice.

This specific one is going to be a problem. We already had the law without this "loophole" and government officials abused it by never finishing the background check and thus denying firearms because they were never quite done doing the check even months later. That's why the so-called loophole was created in the first place, to make agencies do their job and perform the background checks in a timely manner.

Given that a background check is basically just looking at a database and checking for X disqualifications (felony record, open warrant, illegal immigrant, etc.) it should be the kind of thing that is completed in moments normally anyway.

Pretty much every single good in theory piece of gun control has been interpreted or used in literally the most anti gun way it possibly could. Every single gun adjacent thing that was not explicitly defended like suppressors have been targeted. At this point my stance is iron, I would rather criminals be able to get weapons along side every other person then suffer any restriction. Criminals already get weapons illegally, all a law is going to do is stop a honest person from being able to defend themselves.

I am however also someone that feels if a person wants to purchase or build a tank or cannon or bloody battleship then they should be allowed to. By all means monitor them, but despite tanks and heavy weapons being privately owned in the US when is the last time one was used in so much as a crime never mind killed some one? All the tank rampages were stolen from bases I recall.

 

[Doomsought]

The intent of the Constitution, as expressed by its authors, is that I am supposed to be able to own naval artillery. I go so far as to I condone the private ownership of Nuclear explosives.

 

[prinCZess]

At this point, I'm frustrated enough to suggest a law criminalizing gun registries and imprisoning anyone who attempts to enforce them.

While not particular to firearms registries there actually IS preexisting legal precedent in this vein in the United States:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ...

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

www.law.cornell.edu

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

www.law.cornell.edu

(I wish I could brag about my supreme legal-eagle knowledge...But it's actually something I've just seen/been-referenced today in connection to recent events. Of course, firearms registries are absolutely not what the 'intent' of such laws were--though it would seem they were passed in early-1900s, 1909 specifically, if my read is correct? Which is somewhat surprising to me and will be to others just because...I assumed them to be 1950s or 60s things--of course, I might be reading the law site wrong. I am NOT a legal eagle.)

 

[LordsFire]

Shall Not Be Infringed.

That is the sum total of the matter, beginning to end. If you are a US Citizen, any law, statute, or regulation which restricts your ability to purchase and own firearms is unconstitutional.

 

[LindyAF]

Gun Rights is a hill you have to die on, because if you won't you've forfeited the ability to die on any other hill.

 

[Zachowon]

This is my biggest political issue

 

[King Arts]

I'm generally pro-gun-rights but I'm not opposed to background checks as a principle. Some people legitimately and legally shouldn't have guns and double checking that before handing a gun over is sound practice.

This specific one is going to be a problem. We already had the law without this "loophole" and government officials abused it by never finishing the background check and thus denying firearms because they were never quite done doing the check even months later. That's why the so-called loophole was created in the first place, to make agencies do their job and perform the background checks in a timely manner.

Given that a background check is basically just looking at a database and checking for X disqualifications (felony record, open warrant, illegal immigrant, etc.) it should be the kind of thing that is completed in moments normally anyway.

I’m going to disagree with you here. Any living citizen should have the right to own guns. Why are we allowing discussion and compromise on this. The 1st amendment applies to all Americans the 2nd amendment applies to all Americans all of the constitution applies to all living Americans. Are we going to say oh no we have to have a registration flbefore you can practice a religion or give their political opinions? If not for that why for this? Why do we act like the 2nd amendment is the least important when you can argue it’s the most important because it protects the others. I’d say the 1st is more important but it’s still very important.

 

[Captain X]

I am just about to the point of "every gun law is an infringement."

 

[Doomsought]

I rmemeber one of the rare Californian Republicans putting forth a parody bill requiring a license and $500 tax stamp to be a journalist.

 

[Captain X]

The unfunny part of that is that nowadays, I could see Democrats actually unironically doing that themselves under the "fake news" crusade.