# Republicans Slam ATF For Attempting To Alter Legal Definition Of ‘Firearm’



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Again, Merrick Garland proves without doubt that his being withheld from consideration as a Justice on the SCOTUS bench was a wise move.  He does not support our second amendment rights as guaranteed under our 2nd Amendment.



> The proposed rule, the “Definition of Frame or Receiver and Identification of Firearms” was introduced in May and signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Public comments on the rule closed Thursday.











						Republicans Slam ATF For Attempting To Alter Legal Definition Of 'Firearm'
					

More than two dozen GOP House members released a comment criticizing a proposed rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).




					thefederalist.com


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 21, 2021)

Why not?

It worked for redefining the term, "pandemic," and "vaccine," so why not this?

If you can't get the laws you want, change the meaning of the language to get the laws you want.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Again, Merrick Garland proves without doubt that his being withheld from consideration as a Justice on the SCOTUS bench was a wise move.  He does not support our second amendment rights as guaranteed under our 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.

And it's a good idea.

You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 21, 2021)

ATF seems to be a federal law enforcement agency with an inferiority complex. It's not the FBI or the CIA but rather a tax collection agency with the mission to insure that taxes are paid on tobacco and alcohol. Somebody tacked on firearms to the mission and they never seemed to get the hang of it. The ATF is responsible for both the Ruby Ridge fiasco and the Waco tragedy but they are good at CYA because nobody was fired or charged. During the Obama administration somebody came up with the brilliant idea they called "Operation Fast/Furious" where they would ship hundreds of illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels and track their movement. Duh, they immediately lost track and the weapons were used to murder Mexican citizens and at least one U.S. Border patrol Officer. That makes ranking ATF officials guilty of negligent homicide but nobody was charged or even fired as far as we know.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.
> 
> And it's a good idea.
> 
> You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.


Laws do not stop criminals from doing their preferred crimes.  Only idiots expect that everybody will obey laws.  Liberalism is replete with such idiots.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Laws do not stop criminals from doing their preferred crimes.  Only idiots expect that everybody will obey laws.  Liberalism is replete with such idiots.


Preventing folks who aren't supposed to have guns from buying them piece by piece to avoid laws against them buying guns Is a good thing, right?  It will not prevent folks who can legally buy them so no problems.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Preventing folks who aren't supposed to have guns from buying them piece by piece to avoid laws against them buying guns Is a good thing, right?  It will not prevent folks who can legally buy them so no problems.


Again you reiterate your absolutely stupid idea that criminals obey laws.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Again you reiterate your absolutely stupid idea that criminals obey laws.


Ok, so why have any laws at all?  Do laws against bank robbery work?  How about against rape?  Murder?  Theft?  Parking in the wrong place?

What makes guns different?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 21, 2021)

_"However, ATF has always deemed the lower receiver of an AR-15 to be a “frame or receiver” since it is compromised of the fire control group: the trigger, disconnector, hammer, and fire selector. The lower receiver is the portion that is currently marked by my manufacturers with a serial number, but the upper portion would be marked as well under the new rule."
_
Under current federal definitions, the lower is not a receiver.
Nor is the upper.

*(3) The term "firearm'' means* (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is 
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;  *(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; *(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer;  or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm

the terms “firearm frame or receiver” and “frame or receiver” were defined in regulations several decades ago as that part of a firearm that provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, *and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel*

The barrel doe snot attach to the AR lower.   Not a receiver.
The hammer and firing mechanism are not part of the upper.   Not a receiver.

The Obama's adminstration let a crininal go free rather than see this distinction be ruled upon by a court.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Ok, so why have any laws at all? Do laws against bank robbery work? How about against rape? Murder? Theft? Parking in the wrong place?


They work for law abiding citizens.  They provide punishments for criminals that are convicted of breaking them.  The provide lucrative jobs for hoards of lawyers, judges, court staffs, detention centers, DUI schools, probation officers and 9 justices.




Crepitus said:


> What makes guns different?


Nothing.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

asaratis said:


> They work for law abiding citizens.  They provide punishments for criminals that are convicted of breaking them.  The provide lucrative jobs for hoards of lawyers, judges, court staffs, detention centers, DUI schools, probation officers and 9 justices.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing.


So why is a law that prevents criminals from buying guns any different?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.
> 
> And it's a good idea.
> 
> You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.




No...it isn't......criminals will make guns if they want them.  Mexican drug cartels have set up gun shops right across the U.S. border.....

You guys are so fixated on normal gun owners, you sit back and allow the democrats to release violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again, the actual criminals doing all of the actual shooting.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> So why is a law that prevents criminals from buying guns any different?


As I have said:  Laws don't prevent criminals from being criminals.  They don't prevent criminals from raping people.  They don't prevent criminals from stealing.  They don't prevent criminals from committing election fraud.  They don't prevent criminals from embezzling. They don't prevent criminals from selling drugs.  They don't prevent criminals from molesting children. They don't prevent criminals from committing  murder.  

Laws set the rules to keep law abiding people from becoming criminals and to punish criminals THAT GET ARRESTED AND CONVICTED.  Taking the chance of being caught and convicted is made by the people that are subject to the laws.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

asaratis said:


> As I have said:  Laws don't prevent criminals from being criminals.  They don't prevent criminals from raping people.  They don't prevent criminals from stealing.  They don't prevent criminals from committing election fraud.  They don't prevent criminals from embezzling. They don't prevent criminals from selling drugs.  They don't prevent criminals from molesting children. They don't prevent criminals from committing  murder.
> 
> Laws set the rules to keep law abiding people from becoming criminals and to punish criminals THAT GET ARRESTED AND CONVICTED.  Taking the chance of being caught and convicted is made by the people that are subject to the laws.


And why doesn't that apply to gun laws?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.
> 
> And it's a good idea.
> 
> You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.


Then, pass a law.  Take the chance that it won't get shit-canned by the courtd.  Our laws aren't created by the un-elected bureaucrats.

Take the criminals off the street and you won't have to worry about them getting guns.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> And why doesn't that apply to gun laws?


Because gun ownership is a right, rape and murder aren't.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Because gun ownership is a right, rape and murder aren't.


Certain people have lost that right.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> And why doesn't that apply to gun laws?


It does.

Stop trolling, troll.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

asaratis said:


> It does.
> 
> Stop trolling, troll.


Then why are you so against them?


----------



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Then, pass a law.  Take the chance that it won't get shit-canned by the courtd.  Our laws aren't created by the un-elected bureaucrats.
> 
> Take the criminals off the street and you won't have to worry about them getting guns.


It is likely impossible to take all criminals off the streets.  The liberal gun-grabbers think that strict gun laws and confiscation efforts will keep criminals from having guns.  They will not.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why are you so against them?


I support the 2nd Amendment.  Read it.

Stop trolling, troll.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 21, 2021)

asaratis said:


> It is likely impossible to take all criminals off the streets.  The liberal gun-grabbers think that strict gun laws and confiscation efforts will keep criminals from having guns.  They will not.


Of course it's impossible, but the Democrats don't even want to try.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Certain people have lost that right.


Then go after'em and leave everyone else alone.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Then go after'em and leave everyone else alone.


This is part of that.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 22, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Of course it's impossible, but the Democrats don't even want to try.


They support criminals and gun violence, especially mass shootings.  Gives them excuses to cry for abolishing our 2nd Amendment.


----------



## westwall (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Ok, so why have any laws at all?  Do laws against bank robbery work?  How about against rape?  Murder?  Theft?  Parking in the wrong place?
> 
> What makes guns different?





Laws don't prevent crimes.  They merely codify the punishment in the now highly unlikely event that the perp is caught.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 22, 2021)

asaratis said:


> They work for law abiding citizens.  They provide punishments for criminals that are convicted of breaking them.  The provide lucrative jobs for hoards of lawyers, judges, court staffs, detention centers, DUI schools, probation officers and 9 justices.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing.



Really?

So, you think making a ghost gun is "law- abiding"?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 22, 2021)

asaratis said:


> They support criminals and gun violence, especially mass shootings.  Gives them excuses to cry for abolishing our 2nd Amendment.


Do you even know what it takes to ratify or amend an amendment?
40 years of the same crap (lies) from RW nut jobs.

"They are a commin' fer my guns".


----------



## westwall (Aug 22, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> 
> So, you think making a ghost gun is "law- abiding"?





Yeah, it is.  Under the law as it is written anyone who isn't  a fon, or a crazy person can make one firearm per year.

Hobbyists make them, not criminals.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> This is part of that.


No it isn't.  This is just another step toward banning gun ownership.

But, again, the ATF can't make laws.  Only Congress can.  You want the law changed?  Do it legally.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 22, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> So, you think making a ghost gun is "law- abiding"?


As long a syou do not make it with the intent to sell, it is -absolutely- legal -- and thus, law abiding.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 22, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> "They are a commin' fer my guns".


Gun owners trust Democrats with their gun rights as much as women trust Republicans with their abortion rights -- with good reason.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.
> 
> And it's a good idea.
> 
> You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.



There is no legal way to make ghost guns illegal.
If someone wants to buy a machine shop to finish off castings or even raw billet into a firearm, that always has to remain legal.
It can NEVER be illegal to manufacture your own gun.

Criminals have made their own guns in the past, but no law can or will ever stop that, nor is anything gained by trying to prohibit people making their own guns.
Nor can any government ever have the authority to prevent anyone from making their own guns.

If you think kids are making their own guns, that simply is silly.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Preventing folks who aren't supposed to have guns from buying them piece by piece to avoid laws against them buying guns Is a good thing, right?  It will not prevent folks who can legally buy them so no problems.



WRONG!

Ghost guns can not be just "bought piece by piece".
Ghost guns always requires machine shop work to finish off the pieces.
If the main receiver is finished, then it has to get stamped, recorded, and sold, as a "gun".
The only time it does not have to get stamped, recorded, and sold as a gun is if it still has to be machined into a final working part.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Preventing folks who aren't supposed to have guns from buying them piece by piece to avoid laws against them buying guns Is a good thing, right?  It will not prevent folks who can legally buy them so no problems.


^^^
Abject ignorance or blatant dishonesty.
The receiver, and only the receiver, is legally considered gun; transfer of a receiver is regulated under state and federal law as a firearm.
Everything else is just parts.
So, anyone can order any part of a gun they want over the internet and have it shipped to their door, NQA --  except the receiver.
Absent the receiver, the rest of the parts are useless.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> So why is a law that prevents criminals from buying guns any different?



Laws that prevent ex-criminals from legally being able to buy weapons for defense, are inherently illegal.
The right of individual defense not only is paramount, but you simply can not have a 2 tiered society.
Either all people are equal, or you have an oligarchy instead of a democratic republic.

If a person intends to risk the high penalty for murder or armed robbery, then adding a minor gun related penalty is not going to deter them in the least.
All it does is illegally allow prosecutors to pile on additional charges for greater sentences.

But what the gun penalties do cause and is intended for, is intimidation of honest citizens, attempting to prevent them from exercising their legal right and duty to be armed.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why are you so against them?



Because any and all federal gun laws are expressly forbidden and illegal.
That is exactly what the 2nd amendment says, that only states can make or enforce any gun laws.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 22, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Again, Merrick Garland proves without doubt that his being withheld from consideration as a Justice on the SCOTUS bench was a wise move.  He does not support our second amendment rights as guaranteed under our 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 2nd Amendment uses the word "firearms"?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Ok, so why have any laws at all?  Do laws against bank robbery work?  How about against rape?  Murder?  Theft?  Parking in the wrong place?
> 
> What makes guns different?



You don't have a natural right rob. Nor a natural right to rape. Nor a natural right to steal.

That's what.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Ok, so why have any laws at all?  Do laws against bank robbery work?  How about against rape?  Murder?  Theft?  Parking in the wrong place?
> 
> What makes guns different?


Because they are gun loonies.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 22, 2021)

With regard to laws and natural rights, what is Legal is rarely ever Lawful.

Not with these goons writing them.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Then go after'em and leave everyone else alone.



It is impossible to ever lose a right.
When you imprison someone for a crime, they still have all rights, but just are being temporarily curtailed in order to protect the rights of others.
Many states do allow convicted felons to be armed, and over ride the 1937 federal firearms act, because that law is inherently illegal.
{...
With some exceptions, 10 years after completing *felony* probation the state of *Alaska* no longer bans *felons* from possessing concealable *firearms* or living in a residence where there is present a *firearm* capable of being concealed. Also, a *felon* who is off probation may possess a shotgun or long rifle in *Alaska*, with some exceptions.
...}

Firearm possession and ownership is NOT ever under federal jurisdiction, and that should be obvious from reading the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

bodecea said:


> The 2nd Amendment uses the word "firearms"?



It just says "arms", which is much broader then "firearms".


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Because they are gun loonies.



And anyone interested in a democratic republic has to be a "gun looney".
That is because guns are the equalizer that ended all the tyrants, monarchs, dictators, autocrats, and evil despots, by allowing average people to beat the highly specialized and trained professional mercenaries who had allowed the tyrants, monarchs, dictators, autocrats, and evil despots to rule over us, before firearms equalized us.

Essentially:
Populations with firearms = democracy.
Unarmed populations = dictatorship.
It is not just magic that democracies happen.
They have to be fought for, earned, maintained by dedication and responsible gun ownership by the general population.

Go back to our own history.
Vietnam obviously was wrong, but there were too many profiting from it for it to stop on its own.
It required massive effort of students and vets to finally end it.
But we can't rely on that any more because they ended the draft.
The current military is all mercenary, for pay.
They are never going to go against those who pay them.
So we are in big trouble.
There was no one to protest against the evils of invading Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.
And it is getting worse, not better.
An armed population is more necessary every single day.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> With regard to laws and natural rights, what is Legal is rarely ever Lawful.
> 
> Not with these goons writing them.



Most legislation is criminal.
Like the War on Drugs.
There is no legal basis for any nanny legislation that proscribes behavior that has no consequences on anyone else.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 22, 2021)

bodecea said:


> The 2nd Amendment uses the word "firearms"?


No.  It uses the word "arms".

Perhaps you should read this:









						Second Amendment
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				






> This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller _(07-290). The plaintiff in _Heller_ challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, *the Court*, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, *proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. *The majority carved out _Miller_ as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.
> 
> And it's a good idea.
> 
> You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.


Wouldn't it be super smarter to just outlaw killing?  If laws stopped crimes, why not nip this in the bud?

The method many of us support to keep criminals from getting guns, is to keep criminals in prison until the state deems them worthy to exercise all of their rights, like any other citizen.  Then you would have no problems with law abiding citizens at all.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no legal way to make ghost guns illegal.


Lol, what a silly thing to say.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> 
> Ghost guns can not be just "bought piece by piece".
> Ghost guns always requires machine shop work to finish off the pieces.
> ...


And you think criminals don't know that or how to get it done whether they do it themselves or pay someone?


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 22, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Wouldn't it be super smarter to just outlaw killing?  If laws stopped crimes, why not nip this in the bud?
> 
> The method many of us support to keep criminals from getting guns, is to keep criminals in prison until the state deems them worthy to exercise all of their rights, like any other citizen.  Then you would have no problems with law abiding citizens at all.


Don't be stupider than you have to be.  It's embarrassing.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 22, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> Abject ignorance or blatant dishonesty.
> The receiver, and only the receiver, is legally considered gun; transfer of a receiver is regulated under state and federal law as a firearm.
> Everything else is just parts.
> ...


Where did you get the idea I was unaware of this?


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 22, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Don't be stupider than you have to be.  It's embarrassing.


You're the idiot that thinks laws stop crime.  What's wrong with keeping prisoners in prison if they are not deemed worthy to exercise their Constitutional rights?  You do understand that if criminals are in prison, they aren't on the street buying guns.  Something that actually works is called a solution.  You don't offer any of those things, no, you offer oppression, the violation of our Constitution, and whining that criminals break the law.  Unbelievable.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 22, 2021)

Obama goons shipped over 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels and the mainstream media hardly blinked. Now the senile Biden administration leaves God only knows what ordinance with the abandonment of Afghanistan but they still want disarm law abiding American citizens. Go figure.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, it is.  Under the law as it is written anyone who isn't  a fon, or a crazy person can make one firearm per year.
> 
> Hobbyists make them, not criminals.


Until, they sell it, criminal steals it, or they just lie about who they are.


M14 Shooter said:


> As long a syou do not make it with the intent to sell, it is -absolutely- legal -- and thus, law abiding.


See above.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

whitehall said:


> Obama goons shipped over 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels and the mainstream media hardly blinked. Now the senile Biden administration leaves God only knows what ordinance with the abandonment of Afghanistan but they still want disarm law abiding American citizens. Go figure.


As Reagan did the same with Nicaragua and Bush did with Mexico?

Yeah, go figure.
Trumptards whine about a policy THEY started, only because a democrat was/is in office.
Just like everything else.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Gun owners trust Democrats with their gun rights as much as women trust Republicans with their abortion rights -- with good reason.


Um.......................ONE is an amendment in the constitution, the other ONE is a law, not in the constitution.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Because any and all federal gun laws are expressly forbidden and illegal.
> That is exactly what the 2nd amendment says, that only states can make or enforce any gun laws.


You're FOS.

The *National Firearms Act* (*NFA*), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 was enacted on June 26, 1934, and currently codified and amended as I.R.C. ch. 53. The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the federal firearms laws, with the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> It worked for redefining the term, "pandemic," and "vaccine," so why not this?











						Amended Definition of “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” and “Committed to a Mental Institution” (2010R-21P)
					

The Department of Justice proposes amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations to clarify definitions of two categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The proposed...




					www.federalregister.gov
				



ATF is a bunch of a gun grabbing Nazis, still enforcing Sunday Blue Laws and Jim Crow laws to this day. They've been dealing hard drugs and redefining mental health versus mental illness as a legal trick to revoke gun rights for life without a criminal conviction.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> 
> The *National Firearms Act* (*NFA*), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 was enacted on June 26, 1934, and currently codified and amended as I.R.C. ch. 53. The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the federal firearms laws, with the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.


You're full of shit in a court of law on Sunday to boot with all that USC and CFR claptrap.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 23, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Again, Merrick Garland proves without doubt that his being withheld from consideration as a Justice on the SCOTUS bench was a wise move.  He does not support our second amendment rights as guaranteed under our 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you sure that is the reason because there's nothing in there that woyld exclude him. 
It might be that you're a gun nut and don't like anyone taking a stand.  Aaaaah thought so.


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Until, they sell it, criminal steals it, or they just lie about who they are.
> 
> See above.


A nation of laws punishes people for what they DO, not what they COULD do. That has created a risk for the people, yet for over 200 years we have thrived. Those who fear an armed population have a ready solution, a Constitutional amendment.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> You're full of shit in a court of law on Sunday to boot with all that USC and CFR claptrap.


Riiight.

Must be one of those retards that only obey Q NUT "laws".


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Riiight.
> 
> Must be one of those retards that only obey Q NUT "laws".


Whatever it is that ATF enforces, promotes, or compels, please don't call it law. Have some respect for what God lays down, and leave us alone with our own guns in our own hands.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> A nation of laws punishes people for what they DO, not what they COULD do. That has created a risk for the people, yet for over 200 years we have thrived. Those who fear an armed population have a ready solution, a Constitutional amendment.


So, that's why they have codes to insure buildings are built to prevent fires, floods or collaspses.
That's why they have seat belt laws.

February 2, 2018
House Republicans have voted 235-180 to overturn an Obama administration that blocked Social Security disability recipients with mental disorders from buying guns. Less than two weeks into Trump’s presidency and Republicans have given the mentally ill easier access to guns.

“The House voted 235-180 to roll back an attempt by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to block disability recipients with mental disorders like schizophrenia and severe anxiety from owning guns. The rule required reporting people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI’s background check system.

What could go wrong?


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> “The House voted 235-180 to roll back an attempt by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to block disability recipients with mental disorders like schizophrenia and severe anxiety from owning guns. The rule required reporting people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI’s background check system.
> 
> What could go wrong?


The dead feds who tried to enforce cocked up mental shit as law when it wasn't.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Whatever it is that ATF enforces, promotes, or compels, please don't call it law. Have some respect for what God lays down, and leave us alone with our own guns in our own hands.


"God" lays down?
God didn't write the constitution, nor did he make any laws.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> "God" lays down?
> God didn't write the constitution, nor did he make any laws.


Well, God isn't on your side then.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> The dead feds who tried to enforce cocked up mental shit as law when it wasn't.


Then what did the orange, retard sign?

February, 28 2017
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database


ATF and the whole Treasury Department with the Federal Reserve and all will burn to the ground over that.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Well, God isn't on your side then.


So, god isn't on MY side because HE didn't write the constitution or make any laws?


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, god isn't on MY side because HE didn't write the constitution or make any laws?


How long do you continue to struggle against God and against God's Law?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> ATF and the whole Treasury Department with the Federal Reserve and all will burn to the ground over that.


Almost.

August 19, 2021
This time is was a man named Floyd Ray Roseberry from North Carolina. He apparently told his wife he was going fishing, but instead took a detour to the Library of Congress and decided today was a good day to say that he had a bomb in his truck and was ready to die because the election was stolen.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> How long do you continue to struggle against God and against God's Law?


God didn't make any laws, who told you that?
A church?


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> ready to die because the election was stolen


Clearly you are not ready to die and meet your Maker.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Clearly you are not ready to die and meet your Maker.


The one that wrote the constitution?


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Until, they sell it, criminal steals it, or they just lie about who they are.
> 
> See above.






So what.  Here's an idea, when someone commits a violent crime, toss them in prison and keep them there.

You idiots keep letting them out.  Why are you so stupid?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Until, they sell it, criminal steals it, or they just lie about who they are.
> See above.


Nothing here changes the fact that as long as you do not make it with the intent to sell, it is -absolutely- legal -- and thus, law abiding. 
Thus, your statement is false.       
Why do you make statements you know are false?


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, that's why they have codes to insure buildings are built to prevent fires, floods or collaspses.
> That's why they have seat belt laws.
> 
> February 2, 2018
> ...


Not seeing how seat belts or building codes have anything at all to do with shortest and most succinct of our Constitutional amendments. False equivalency isn't going to cut it. 

The revocation of rights, as determined by third party practictioners of subjective voodoo science isn't in the Constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> As Reagan did the same with Nicaragua and Bush did with Mexico?


^^^
Red herring.
Implicit in this is your admission that he is right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Um.......................ONE is an amendment in the constitution, the other ONE is a law, not in the constitution.


Um...  no.  The right to an abortion is found the  'eliminations and penumbras" of the constitution, if you believe _Roe_.
How does this address, let alone affect, anything I said?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 23, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> February 2, 2018
> House Republicans have voted 235-180 to overturn an Obama administration that blocked Social Security disability recipients with mental disorders from buying guns.


Why was that?

_"The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database."
_
Because it is not illegal for these people to have guns.
As it was not illegal for the people to have guns, The Obama violated their rights.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> So what. Here's an idea, when someone commits a violent crime, toss them in prison and keep them there.


That won't work because the Democrats professional hired killers and assassins have to possesseha firearms, and they have to use mental health trickery and deceit in a court of law to ban guns for law abiding citizens.


M14 Shooter said:


> Um...  no.  The right to an abortion is found the  'eliminations and penumbras" of the constitution, if you believe _Roe_.
> How does this address, let alone affect, anything I said?


People murder their own children in cold blood and then turn around and tell us we shouldn't possess firearms and they want us in prison for life even if we haven't done anything wrong with a firearm at all.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.
> 
> And it's a good idea.
> 
> You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.


Give me an hour and access to the hardware store and I'll build a gun on a stump in the back yard with nothing but a hacksaw and a drill.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 23, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Give me an hour and access to the hardware store and I'll build a gun on a stump in the back yard with nothing but a hacksaw and a drill.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 24, 2021)

asaratis said:


> View attachment 530028


One of these days I'm going to fabricate a Cobray Terminator or a Richardson Guerilla Gun  just for fun...but the Luty is definitely on the bucket list...


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

westwall said:


> So what.  Here's an idea, when someone commits a violent crime, toss them in prison and keep them there.
> 
> You idiots keep letting them out.  Why are you so stupid?


You're a moron.
Sure, so you want a prison in every county in the nation?
Who's going to pay for that?

The US has the highest amount of prisoners in the world by 500,000.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nothing here changes the fact that as long as you do not make it with the intent to sell, it is -absolutely- legal -- and thus, law abiding.
> Thus, your statement is false.
> Why do you make statements you know are false?


Sure, an unregistered weapon, with no serial numbers, with no one knowing where or how it was made?
Sure.................. I'll be sure not to sell it.
I'll just make another one..................and sell it too.

You're pretty fucking gullible.


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, an unregistered weapon, with no serial numbers, with no one knowing where or how it was made?
> Sure.................. I'll be sure not to sell it.
> I'll just make another one..................and sell it too.
> 
> You're pretty fucking gullible.


You think like a criminal, no wonder you don't understand law abiding citizens.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Not seeing how seat belts or building codes have anything at all to do with shortest and most succinct of our Constitutional amendments. False equivalency isn't going to cut it.
> 
> The revocation of rights, as determined by third party practictioners of subjective voodoo science isn't in the Constitution.


What a moron.

Just let crazy people have all the guns they want? (Trumptards)

What could go wrong?

"The revocation of rights, as determined by third party practictioners of subjective voodoo science isn't in the Constitution".

Still a moron.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP) was originally authorized under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), P.L. 110-180. The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS, and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NIAA seeks to address gaps in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Both the NCHIP and NARIP were reauthorized under Title VI (Fix NICS Act) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-141).


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> You think like a criminal, no wonder you don't understand law abiding citizens.


"Law abiding"?
Democrats expel criminals.
Republicans elect them.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Um...  no.  The right to an abortion is found the  'eliminations and penumbras" of the constitution, if you believe _Roe_.
> How does this address, let alone affect, anything I said?


You're FOS.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs Wade in 1973, they could not find anything in the Constitution that related to abortion; it’s not there, so they had to come up with something to base their decision.  They chose the 14th Amendment and then manufactured a right to privacy from it.  What?  What does privacy have to do with abortion?  Nothing.  They came up with something out of the air: Penumbras and emanations, from which they got “privacy.”


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why was that?
> 
> _"The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database."_
> 
> ...


You're FOS. 
It was an amendment to the Brady bill signed by Reagan.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 24, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It's a move to prevent "ghost" guns.
> 
> And it's a good idea.
> 
> You kids claim you want to stop criminals from.getting guns but not "law abiding gun owners"?  This is a good way to start.


yes another redefined word that has no meaning 
No such thing as a ghost gun
You, leftists, like to create names for things to make them sound scary
Here's a name that is more dangerous than any firearm
LEFTIST


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> What a moron.
> 
> Just let crazy people have all the guns they want? (Trumptards)
> 
> ...


Proposing and supporting the revocation of rights without due process is what fascists and commies do. Scum like you are a blight on a free country.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Proposing and supporting the revocation of rights without due process is what fascists and commies do. Scum like you are a blight on a free country.


Fuck you, retard.

"Due process"?
It was your scumbag party that created, passed and signed into law, the un"patriot" act, in 45 days.
Allowing the government to spy on it's own citizens, internet searches and library book searches.

Communist?
Free country?

The only persons advocating that was Trump and his cult.

March 3 2018
U.S. President Donald Trump praised Chinese President Xi Jinping Saturday after the ruling Communist party announced it was eliminating the two-term limit for the presidency, paving the way for Xi to serve indefinitely.

“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida. 
“And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

Trump praises a communist.
Trump's cult cheer for communism.

Then they tried on January 6th.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're a moron.
> Sure, so you want a prison in every county in the nation?
> Who's going to pay for that?
> 
> The US has the highest amount of prisoners in the world by 500,000.





No, you fucking MORON, I don't.   What I DO want are violent criminals OFF THE DAMNED STREET!

YOU fuckers constantly allow the most violent bastards to walk free to continue their killing.

You people either want them to murder people, in which case you are feckless scum.

Or, you're too fucking stupid to be allowed any power whatsoever.


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Fuck you, retard.
> 
> "Due process"?
> It was your scumbag party that created, passed and signed into law, the un"patriot" act, in 45 days.
> ...


What effects did the patriot act have on the 2nd amendment? What sort of dipshit are you? What did Obama do about it in eight years? Oh right, made it even worse. Nice of you to ignore that. 

You should start a thread on all that off topic stuff. Way to not even address the topic at hand and have a TDS tantrum. Pathetic.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

westwall said:


> No, you fucking MORON, I don't.   What I DO want are violent criminals OFF THE DAMNED STREET!
> 
> YOU fuckers constantly allow the most violent bastards to walk free to continue their killing.
> 
> ...


Fuck you, retarded Trump humper.

"What I DO want are violent criminals OFF THE DAMNED STREET"!
And they are, for a time,  you fucking moron.
You want to give some first time robbery suspect to spend 50 years in prison?
Better start building more prison.

"You people either want them to murder people, in which case you are feckless scum".
They don't let murderers out in 5 years, dumbass.
It's your scumbag party that allows crazy people to roam the streets...................with guns.
It's your scumbag party that wants to allow convicted felons to own weapons.

You're the problem and too stupid to know it.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> What effects did the patriot act have on the 2nd amendment? What sort of dipshit are you? What did Obama do about it in eight years? Oh right, made it even worse. Nice of you to ignore that.
> 
> You should start a thread on all that off topic stuff. Way to not even address the topic at hand and have a TDS tantrum. Pathetic.


Yes, you are, moron.
Whining about "DUE PROCESS" you fucking retard, 45 days is enough?

Obama tried to improve it.

May 26, 2011
Despite bills pending in both the House and the Senate to amend the three expiring provisions and other sections of the Patriot Act to include much-needed privacy protections, Congress decided instead to move ahead with a straightforward reauthorization. The provisions of the Patriot Act that were extended.

That moron from Kentucky Moscow Mich blocked it.


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, you are, moron.
> Whining about "DUE PROCESS" you fucking retard, 45 days is enough?
> 
> Obama tried to improve it.
> ...


45 days isn't due process, it's a time frame.  You must be leaking brain cells by the minute, you get stupider by the post. 

Care to stay on topic or are you due for another TDS tantrum?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> 45 days isn't due process, it's a time frame.  You must be leaking brain cells by the minute, you get stupider by the post.
> 
> Care to stay on topic or are you due for another TDS tantrum?


Really, Trumptard?
The mentally ill, like yourself,  has between 18 months to two years or more for SS to decide whether they qualify for benefits.
They have plenty of  "due process'.


But you defend letting that same crazy person have weapons, with a stroke of a pen.
Then  your nut job party wants to allow convicted felons to buy and own weapons.

You have no brain cells to leak.


----------



## Rogue AI (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really, Trumptard?
> The mentally ill, like yourself,  has between 18 months to two years or more for SS to decide whether they qualify for benefits.
> They have plenty of  "due process'.
> 
> ...


Apparently you do not know what due process is. You really are a moron. Good bye.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're a moron.
> Sure, so you want a prison in every county in the nation?
> Who's going to pay for that?


A "county" by definition is an administrative law district of the state and a community of law abiding citizens built around a local jail.


Smokin' OP said:


> The US has the highest amount of prisoners in the world by 500,000.


Most are men, granted, but you are looking at official numbers. They don't tell the truth.


			https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp&
		

Women and targeted individuals are disappearing unaccounted for in any of various federal and state prisons, penitentiaries, and mental hospitals, as well as numerous county and city jails and psychiatric wards of various administrative law districts where citizens are subject to arbitrary detention, imprisonment, torture and punishment for any reason.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really, Trumptard?
> The mentally ill, like yourself, has between 18 months to two years or more for SS to decide whether they qualify for benefits.
> They have plenty of "due process'.


You suggest other human beings are "mentally ill" when they're looking for work or gainful employment or business opportunities, you'd better be prepared to pay with your souls, lives, and fortunes for your libel, slander, and defamation of character, because you owe a house, home, and healthy standard of living to such persons to compensate for what you dumbasses took away in your medieval asshattery and ancient notions of mental illness and demonic possession.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Fuck you, retard.
> 
> "Due process"?
> It was your scumbag party that created, passed and signed into law, the un"patriot" act, in 45 days.
> ...


huffy leftist post retard is that all you have?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Apparently you do not know what due process is. You really are a moron. Good bye.


You damned sure don't, retard.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> You suggest other human beings are "mentally ill" when they're looking for work or gainful employment or business opportunities, you'd better be prepared to pay with your souls, lives, and fortunes for your libel, slander, and defamation of character, because you owe a house, home, and healthy standard of living to such persons to compensate for what you dumbasses took away in your medieval asshattery and ancient notions of mental illness and demonic possession.


Another fucking, retard?

"You suggest other human beings are "mentally ill" when they're looking for work or gainful employment or business opportunities".

That's why they filed for SSI disability?

They are looking for government benefits, moron, they don't work.
If they do work, no benefits.
Good god, how stupid can you people possibly get.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 24, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> huffy leftist post retard is that all you have?


Hannity and Q NUT daily is all you have?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 24, 2021)

Missourian said:


> Give me an hour and access to the hardware store and I'll build a gun on a stump in the back yard with nothing but a hacksaw and a drill.


Legally.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, an unregistered weapon, with no serial numbers, with no one knowing where or how it was made?
> Sure.................. I'll be sure not to sell it.
> I'll just make another one..................and sell it too.
> You're pretty fucking gullible.


Nothing here changes the fact that as long as you do not make it with the intent to sell, it is -absolutely- legal -- and thus, law abiding.
Why do you refuse to accept the truth?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.


I'm sorry you don't understand the basic facts surrounding the issue, but there's nothing I can do about that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> It was an amendment to the Brady bill signed by Reagan.


^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> It was your scumbag party that created, passed and signed into law, the un"patriot" act, in 45 days.


How many "no" votes did the Patriot Act have in the house?
In the senate?
Oh look - you lied.  Again.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really, Trumptard?
> The mentally ill, like yourself,  has between 18 months to two years or more for SS to decide whether they qualify for benefits.
> They have plenty of  "due process'.
> 
> ...



Absolutely convicted felons who have served their sentence should have identical rights to anyone else.
If not, then there is no democratic republic anymore.
Then it is just like Russia, where dissidents are all just declared mentally unstable and locked up.
Either you have equality or you have a dictatorship.
There is nothing in between.

If a person is a danger, then it accomplishes nothing to put their name on a list that prevents them legally buying firearms.
They can still legally buy even more dangerous stuff like flammables, toxins, explosives, etc.
And anyone intent on murder, will not be deterred by the more minor gun sentence.
So gun laws are totally irrational unless their real purpose is to make whole populations easier to intimidate?


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> are looking for government benefits, moron, they don't work.
> If they do work, no benefits.
> Good god, how stupid can you people possibly get.


Negotiate a wage or obtain a management position with any sort of mental health background on your record, dumbass. It goes on your permanent record as a felony sex offense or a dishonorable discharge from the military when you're looking for work. You don't earn enough in eight hours for a place to sleep that night, let alone transportation to and from work.

Once again, when you call people mentally ill, you are going to pay for that claim with your soul, life, and fortune, to compensate for what you have taken away.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Fuck you, retarded Trump humper.
> 
> "What I DO want are violent criminals OFF THE DAMNED STREET"!
> And they are, for a time,  you fucking moron.
> ...





Move to Dem paradise Chicago then you coward.


----------



## JohnDB (Aug 24, 2021)

Democrats are going to have to understand that the fleas come with the dog. 

And that dog is called technology. 

Meaning that ghost guns are a freedom that comes with having technology. Just like truck drivers use CB radios to thwart speed traps ghost guns aren't any different. 

And arresting people who sell them or buy them is unconstitutional. (Unless they aren't allowed legally to possess a firearm). Because otherwise a lot of innocent people can be arrested and convicted for having a garage machine shop. (Many who have nothing to do with guns) 

Custom gun manufacturers are licensed...and they can produce a lot of unique guns...they can build them hidden in anything and everything...from canes to porch bannisters and everything in between. 
With unique talents, a drive by shooter needs to be wary of the bullets flying back at them. With today's sensor and computer technology...a LOT more things are possible than ever before. 

Get used to it. 

And if a person uses compressed air instead of smokeless gunpowder...the whole issue goes away. But muzzle velocity and grain size doesn't change. Just saying...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> It was an amendment to the Brady bill signed by Reagan.


The Brady act passed into law 4 years after Reagan left office.
Good god, how stupid can you possibly get?


----------



## JohnDB (Aug 24, 2021)

Guns are very simple devices. Your oldest cell phone has a lot more technology in it than 99% of all guns do. 

Next thing you know a parent can be arrested for bioweapons proliferation because he bought a 1,000X wet lense microscope and some slides for his kids to play with.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 24, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Hannity and Q NUT daily is all you have?


we have more than Hanity and it doesn't matter what matters which is more truthful and sonny there is nothing truthful coming from any leftists run media source.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 24, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> we have more than Hanity and it doesn't matter what matters which is more truthful and sonny there is nothing truthful coming from any leftists run media source.



No leftist are in favor of gun control.
The democratic party is for some reason, but they are not leftist any more.
The Clintons are backed by bankers, the right wing, wealthy elite.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 24, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No leftist are in favor of gun control.
> The democratic party is for some reason, but they are not leftist any more.
> The Clintons are backed by bankers, the right wing, wealthy elite.


nope clinton may have been backed by bankers doesn't change the fact they are leftists


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 24, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> nope clinton may have been backed by bankers doesn't change the fact they are leftists



In what way?
Leftists support unions, increased bank regulations, decreased drug regulations, etc.
The Clintons were the opposite of left, on all significant areas I am aware of.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Absolutely convicted felons who have served their sentence should have identical rights to anyone else.
> If not, then there is no democratic republic anymore.
> Then it is just like Russia, where dissidents are all just declared mentally unstable and locked up.
> Either you have equality or you have a dictatorship.
> ...


 "Absolutely convicted felons who have served their sentence should have identical rights to anyone else.
If not, then there is no democratic republic anymore".

So, republicans are in favor of convicted felons, owning weapons but put every roadblock up to prevent the same people from voting.
Florida’s longstanding policy of preventing anyone with a felony conviction from voting. First implemented in the 19th century, the policy was used as a cudgel of white supremacy during the Jim Crow era to disenfranchise African Americans after they formally gained the right to vote. By 2016, it had become one of the most potent forms of voter suppression in the United States, blocking up to 1.4 million people in Florida – including more than 21% of eligible Black voters – from being able to vote. 

On election night in 2018, Meade and Wright would find out that 64.5% of Floridians had voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to end the policy. More than 5.1 million people – more than voted for Ron DeSantis, the Republican elected governor that evening – were in favor of the measure. The referendum – often referred to as amendment 4 – was one of the most dramatic expansions of the right to vote in US history since the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

When lawmakers returned to Tallahassee in the spring of 2019, however, it quickly became clear they were uninterested in simply clarifying the ambiguities. They wanted to render it toothless.

In the Florida house of representatives, Jamie Grant, a Republican, pushed through a bill that required anyone with a felony conviction to repay all fines, fees, court costs and restitution before someone could vote again.

'Either you have equality or you have a dictatorship'.
"There is nothing in between".

YEP.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 25, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The Brady act passed into law 4 years after Reagan left office.
> Good god, how stupid can you possibly get?


Won't ever get to your level.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 25, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> we have more than Hanity and it doesn't matter what matters which is more truthful and sonny there is nothing truthful coming from any leftists run media source.


Your sources quote/believe Trump and regurgitate.
Lie after lie after lie.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 25, 2021)

westwall said:


> Move to Dem paradise Chicago then you coward.


Move your illiterate "paradise" to Texas you moron, then secede.
When the going get tough, vacation in Cancun.

February 24 2021
As Texans were enduring unendurable pain during one of the worst disasters in state history, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took the opportunity to journey to the sun of Cancun.

Ten years ago Texans were clearly warned of the need to weatherize their systems, but Republican governors failed for a decade to take the statewide actions that would have prevented the pain, misery, hunger and death that followed.

And now there are persistent reports of Texans being price gouged by utilities on their electric bills and ripped off by thousands of dollars for a few days of desperately needed electricity at a life endangering moment.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> "Absolutely convicted felons who have served their sentence should have identical rights to anyone else.
> If not, then there is no democratic republic anymore".
> 
> So, republicans are in favor of convicted felons, owning weapons but put every roadblock up to prevent the same people from voting.
> ...



It is totally illegal to not let felons vote.
As long as they are paying taxes, that is illegal taxation without representation, if nothing else.


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Move your illiterate "paradise" to Texas you moron, then secede.
> When the going get tough, vacation in Cancun.
> 
> February 24 2021
> ...





What the fuck are babbling about you loon.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 25, 2021)

westwall said:


> What the fuck are babbling about you loon.


Bigly words got you confused?
It happens with Trump and his cult.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 25, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Negotiate a wage or obtain a management position with any sort of mental health background on your record, dumbass. It goes on your permanent record as a felony sex offense or a dishonorable discharge from the military when you're looking for work. You don't earn enough in eight hours for a place to sleep that night, let alone transportation to and from work.
> 
> Once again, when you call people mentally ill, you are going to pay for that claim with your soul, life, and fortune, to compensate for what you have taken away.


WTF?
You're an idiot.
These people are collecting SSI, they don't work, that's why they were collecting $$$ from SS.
I'm not the one calling them mentally ill, THEY ARE, and their lawyers.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 25, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> How many "no" votes did the Patriot Act have in the house?
> In the senate?
> Oh look - you lied.  Again.


Riight, just like the Iraq invasion.
Republicans tried to blame democrats, when it started going south.


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Bigly words got you confused?
> It happens with Trump and his cult.





No, no big words, you are completely off topic.

Try and stay on topic.

Mmmkay


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> nope clinton may have been backed by bankers doesn't change the fact they are leftists



What leftist policies did the Clinton's back?
They were the ones who wanted to mandate private health insurance, which is incredibly right wing.
They wanted banks deregulated.
They supported the military and foreign interventions.
They supported federalizing the War on Drugs.

Everything they did was very right wing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Your sources quote/believe Trump and regurgitate.
> Lie after lie after lie.


the only lies come from your leftists sources


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Bigly words got you confused?
> It happens with Trump and his cult.


but those big-league words stump you


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> In what way?
> Leftists support unions, increased bank regulations, decreased drug regulations, etc.
> The Clintons were the opposite of left, on all significant areas I am aware of.


you don't get it politicians especially leftwingers play their followers as fools 
They are useful idiots.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Riight, just like the Iraq invasion.
> Republicans tried to blame democrats, when it started going south.



Obama could have ended both wars, but instead he screwed them both up.
I voted for Obama, but he screwed up.

{... 
In March, Obama approved 21,000 extra troops into Afghanistan, fulfilling a longstanding request to increase the number of U.S. troops to 68,000. But that&#8217;s not enough, according to Afghanistan&#8217;s top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

McChrystal reportedly is asking for between 40,000 and 60,000 more troops, writing in an assessment that, without troops and a dedicated counterinsurgency effort, the war &#8220;will likely result in failure.&#8221;

Experts said they could move those troops from Iraq, given time and available aircraft. But those same experts said that simply pulling troops out of Baghdad and putting them in Kabul isn&#8217;t all that simple.
...}




__





						Transferring troops from Iraq for buildup in Afghanistan a costly shortcut
					

As President Barack Obama ponders whether or how to grant his Afghanistan commander’s urgent request for up to 60,000 more troops to expand the flagging war against Taliban insurgents, one obvious question arises: Why not simply transfer thousands of soldiers from nearby Iraq?




					www.stripes.com


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

A left winger can't support gun control.
The whole point of being left wing is the protection of individual liberties against powerful corporation, banks, wealthy employers, corrupt governments, gangsters, etc.
That means left wing has to be against government gun control.
From a leftist perspective, government employees should not have superior arms to ordinary people.


----------



## JohnDB (Aug 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> A left winger can't support gun control.
> The whole point of being left wing is the protection of individual liberties against powerful corporation, banks, wealthy employers, corrupt governments, gangsters, etc.
> That means left wing has to be against government gun control.
> From a leftist perspective, government employees should not have superior arms to ordinary people.


From my understanding it is that the left believes that the people as a whole generate the economy with needs which is then exploited by a few. 
The Right wing believes that a few people with ingenuity create products and jobs that people want to buy. 

To me...they are both right and wrong all at the same time. 

Left stresses community responsibility and the right stresses individual responsibility. 

Again both right and both wrong at the same time. 

So there's no way I can pick one side or the other without being wrong. But I do think that together, the left and right make an unstoppable team.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

JohnDB said:


> From my understanding it is that the left believes that the people as a whole generate the economy with needs which is then exploited by a few.
> The Right wing believes that a few people with ingenuity create products and jobs that people want to buy.
> 
> To me...they are both right and wrong all at the same time.
> ...



I think it is a little less balanced than that.
I think it is still the people who also do all the work to produce the products as well, and the only thing the wealthy elite do is horde the capital needed to build the factories.
Before the industrial revolution, it was more work producing things one at a time with cottage industries, but the poor workers were the means of production entirely then.
What the industrial revolution did was put all the cottage industries  out of business because things like big steam powered looms cut production costs in half, IF you could afford the machines.  So it was not a question of ingenuity, but simply of who controlled the excess capital?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 26, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> the only lies come from your leftists sources


That's only when they quote the lying, orange, grifter from Queens.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 26, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> but those big-league words stump you


Yeah, using big league as an adverb instead of an adjective is one.
Covfefe still confuses me.
Thighland must be next to Turkey.
Nambia is where?
Two Corinthians is in the king james version?

"I know words, I have the best words."


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Obama could have ended both wars, but instead he screwed them both up.
> I voted for Obama, but he screwed up.
> 
> {...
> ...


"Obama could have ended both wars, but instead he screwed them both up."

So could the person who started them and Trump.
Trump is the one who signed the agreement with the Taliban but screwed that up, as usual.
Bush did end one.

The *U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement* (official name: *Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq*) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Obama got blamed for that.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> "Obama could have ended both wars, but instead he screwed them both up."
> 
> So could the person who started them and Trump.
> Trump is the one who signed the agreement with the Taliban but screwed that up, as usual.
> ...



Except that US forces did not withdraw from Iraq according to these Bush schedules.
So Bush, Obama, and Trump should all get part of the blame.

Instead, we illegally expanded the use of force into Syria.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 27, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yeah, using big league as an adverb instead of an adjective is one.
> Covfefe still confuses me.
> Thighland must be next to Turkey.
> Nambia is where?
> ...


Yes, you leftists like to rename the meaning of things to fit your narrative.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 28, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes, you leftists like to rename the meaning of things to fit your narrative.


Those were comments your retarded dear leader made, you moron.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 28, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Those were comments your retarded dear leader made, you moron.



Yes they are famous, or maybe infamous.
But so is the misuse of the term, "assault weapon".
There is no such thing, and the AR rifles are no more dangerous than anything.
If one were to characterize an AR, it would be that it is inexpensive, reliable, light, and very low power, with hardly any recoil.
It can not shoot any faster than you can pull the trigger repeatedly on any firearm, and it was designed by the military to be less lethal than what was used in WWII.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 3, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Ok, so why have any laws at all?  Do laws against bank robbery work?  How about against rape?  Murder?  Theft?  Parking in the wrong place?
> 
> What makes guns different?


Bank robbery, rape, murder, theft, etc all result in denying the right, liberty, protection, or property of others.  

Merely possessing a weapon does NOTHING.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 3, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Bank robbery, rape, murder, theft, etc all result in denying the right, liberty, protection, or property of others.
> Merely possessing a weapon does NOTHING.


Correct.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 3, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Bank robbery, rape, murder, theft, etc all result in denying the right, liberty, protection, or property of others.
> 
> Merely possessing a weapon does NOTHING.


Except that they are often used to Commit Bank robbery, rape, murder, theft, and in denying the right, liberty, protection, or property of others.


----------

