testtest

Biden Just Said He Wants to Ban Handguns

Texas Buzzard said:
As out of touch, destructive and ridiculous as this old fool is let's hope he's able to complete this first term... because what's next in line is even worse. A lot worse! :poop:
Click to expand...
Son, you ain't just whistlin' Dixie! Kamala is a near rabid anti-gun ideologue and an even far more left leaning progressive than Biden is. If for some reason he fails to make the whole term, we'd be in a far more dangerous situation.
 
benstt said:
To be fair and accurate, based on the text of the article, he said he wants to ban "high capacity" firearms, not handguns as a class. Still objectionable, but let's be accurate.
Click to expand...
Not 100% sure, but I think his quote was that he was "for a ban on weapons that can fire multiple rounds, including handguns." He went on to say something more about 'high capacity' guns, but I don't think for a minute he'll be satisfied with just that description ....... do you?

That quote may not have been from the speech the other night, but I've heard the quote at some point or another.
 
Susquash said:
This should not surprise anyone
The dotering fool said years ago we should buy double barrel shotguns for our wives for home defense.
Click to expand...
Yeh, and then we're to tell her that anytime she's afraid of bad guys to walk out on the balcony and fire off 2 blasts into the air. As if that's the magic solution to the problem of bad guys :confused::confused::rolleyes:.

And to think this guy lives on the outskirts of Wilmington, where I'll just bet the firing of any firearm from a balcony in the city limits is a violation of law.

'Course, I could be wrong !!!
 
It really doesn't matter what one (Even President Biden) believes the 2A means; wants to take away guns; or even if they get the history wrong. The only thing that matters are laws passed and courts upholding or overturning these laws (Local, State, and federal levels). And to some extent Executive Orders - these have limits and can be changed by the next person up. EO's can't come out of thin air - they are more about what the Executive will (try to) enforce.

Th president is not an authoritarian. The process for changing the Constitution is pretty intense. The Democrats do not have the votes to enact laws taking guns away - no matter how much a few of them extoll the values of gun control. If Sandy Hook didn't bring about radical Federal gun legislation, I don't see how one president and a tied congress could do it.

Also - that "shall not be infringed part" - It doesn't matter what you or I think it means - it only means what the courts interpret it to mean in the context of laws passed/challenged. If you read "shall not be infringed" as "not regulated" - that ship sailed with DC vs. Heller and Ultra-Conservative Justice Scalia's opinion. Yes, that ruling affirmed the right of the individual for armed defense - but it also said the 2A was not absolute and had limits - that was Scalia.

I think we (Gun community), overestimate the power of a president (Dem or Rep). Additionally we "knee-jerk" to conclusions that are not consistent with our Constitution and the way that document works.

Its all about the courts and the legislature - not the president. didn't a former president say something like - "Take the guns first, then have due process" - ???????? - and I'll bet that hardly gave a pause to most 2A advocates voting for him (again). This was discussed in a previous post - but the irony of gun owners in favor of a president with authoritarian tendencies is pretty rich....just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
dadoser, everything you've said above is valid. But I'll take exception to this one line where you said "I think we (Gun community) overestimates the power of a president". I think the reality is that most of us don't want to 'underestimate' the power of politics in general.

No gun control law will necessarily end our 2nd amendment rights, but can/could seriously restrict those rights. Convoluted laws always cause convoluted results. And all during the time and effort it would take to get through the courts and get a favorable resolution, might just be too long for some/many of us. (y)(y)(y)
 
Russia bad, China good

1627015465453.png

Translation: Jo Bi Deng
 
jumpinjoe said:
dadoser, everything you've said above is valid. But I'll take exception to this one line where you said "I think we (Gun community) overestimates the power of a president". I think the reality is that most of us don't want to 'underestimate' the power of politics in general.

No gun control law will necessarily end our 2nd amendment rights, but can/could seriously restrict those rights. Convoluted laws always cause convoluted results. And all during the time and effort it would take to get through the courts and get a favorable resolution, might just be too long for some/many of us. (y)(y)(y)
Click to expand...
I hear you. But a President cannot make law.
The pro gun vote in this country is strong - especially with the number of new gun owners over the last year - the growth of the Black gun community and organizations like NAAGA is incredible - and that community tends to go Democrat. There are just not enough democratic vote for any sweeping gun legislation at this time and in this razor thin political climate.

The ATF brace interpretation is an issue right now - but that proposal is so complex and convoluted - I don't even think they know what it means.

The AWB in '94?? - came about after years of lobbying/working congress as a result of the attempted Reagan assassination. Like I say - Sandy Hook - 25? 5-7 yrs olds killed results in ZERO Federal gun legislation. in this climate it will take a catastrophic event to get gun legislation passed. The courts and current rulings is what is making a difference. That may be going in the right direction - but I'm not sure we can truly count on "conservative" judges.
 
Last edited:
Bassbob said:
It won't take a catastrophic event. It will take one democrat along with a few Rinos. The SCOTUS could put an end to this BS, but it remains to be seen if they will.
Click to expand...
One Democrat and a few Rhinos???

The house has passed a couple minor gun bills - Schumer has yet to even put them on the Senate Agenda.

Senate is tied - 50/50 with V.P Harris as the tiebreaker.
With the filibuster/majority - You will need every Democrat and 10 Republicans to support any gun legislation. (Background checks/gun show loophole - maybe, but I doubt it. "Banning handguns: - no way - that wouldn't even get thru the House.) Democrats the gun control crowd probably doesn't have - Manchin, Tester, Sinema.....maybe a couple others that are low key/non-vocal on the issue. Without those 3, you now need 13 Republicans. I don't see any Gun control legislation getting thru congress at this point - with those numbers.

Additionally - Biden's capitol is already been spent with covid relief. He also has infrastructure he/they are trying to pass as priority. If he/they even get to guns - there will be no political capitol left.

Scenario 2 -
Democrats blow up the filibuster/majorities for ANY legislation. I don't think they have Manchin, Tester, or Sinema on board for anything even close to a handgun band. It would not even get to Harris for the tie-breaking vote. How many "Rhinos" do you realistically think will vote for any type of gun ban? Not trying to be a smart*ss here - but name the Rhinos you think would go for that. Romney? (I doubt it) Who else?

Fast-forward to 2022 election -
It is questionable if the Democrats will even keep the House majority/control. Even if they do, the margin will surely be even more narrow than it is now. There is a slight possibility of the Democrats increasing their majority in the Senate - but I don't think they increase it by 4 extremely progressive Democrats.

Again - watch what they do, and actually have the power to do - not the Rhetoric they talk. We are still a center right country and congress on both teams want to get re-elected.

Local State legislation is different.

The key is contacting/writing your Senators and Congress people (Federal and local levels) in support of 2A rights. Posting reactionary rhetoric from the other side on gun forums is fine - but writing/emailing your representatives is probably much more effective.

One other note - the extreme increase in Black/Democratic voters in buying guns was not because they loved Trump or their fear that "Jews would replace them." Don't underestimate the increasing 2A support on the Left.
 
Last edited:
The house will pass it every time and if they get Manchin on board in the senate say goodbye to the filibuster. You can say it will never happen, just like I said Harry Reid would never go for the nuclear option. We see how that turned out. Then you have Mitt Rommel, Susan Collins and a handful of other Rinos in the senate.
 
Bassbob said:
The house will pass it every time and if they get Manchin on board in the senate say goodbye to the filibuster. You can say it will never happen, just like I said Harry Reid would never go for the nuclear option. We see how that turned out. Then you have Mitt Rommel, Susan Collins and a handful of other Rinos in the senate.
Click to expand...
Good discussion.
And - I will always say - I could be wrong....as the future is uncertain. I just think the best predictor of future behavior/outcomes is by looking at past behavior/outcomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top