Biden announces proposed gun control measures

Sccritterkiller

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
607
Ted is my guy! He is a through and through Conservative. Few completely ignore politicians they adore, the few policies they don't like. They tolerate them. Ted like other true Conservatives believe the Federal Government shouldn't own as much land in the west as they do. They believe in small Federal Government and the ginormous Forest Circus and BLM goes against that. They don't believe that is what was intended by the Founders and it wasn't. The Lousiana Purchase changed all that, because it was so huge!! I agree with the founders and the Conservatives. However, I don't want the majority of Western federal land transfered either, because I use it and want my children too.
Yet selling off public lands is still in the R 2016 party platform...why not the 2020 platform....thats right they didn't bother to update it for 2020 election...

He needs to go along with any other Congressman you know by name, on both sides. If you know their name they have been there too long and they need to go get a real job and earn an honest living and quit stealing from the American people.
 
OP
BjornF16

BjornF16

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Texas
Yet selling off public lands is still in the R 2016 party platform...why not the 2020 platform....thats right they didn't bother to update it for 2020 election...

He needs to go along with any other Congressman you know by name, on both sides. If you know their name they have been there too long and they need to go get a real job and earn an honest living and quit stealing from the American people.
I really think this should be up to the individual state.

My problem is administrations like Clinton conduct land grabs for political purposes and don't let the state have any say.

 

307

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
1,232
Location
Cheyenne
I like it. I'm good with 2 or 3 terms, then out!

No pension!
In places with more rigid term limits, it simply increases the power of the lobbyists and the executive branch.

It takes time to learn how these giant government entities work, and having a constant flow of rookies trying to learn the system just makes the whole thing less effective, thus effectively increasing the power of other influences.

And the pension thing, wouldn't that simply encourage elected officials to use their influence for personal gain, knowing that they'd soon be without a job and without a financial safety net? I don't think that's a great idea.

Both ideas seem like good things on the surface, but there are always unintended consequences.
 

NevadaZielmeister

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
671
Location
Reno, NV
(Nevada, this isn't a personal attack, so please don't take it as such. If I misinterpret your quote, let me know.)

This is a classic example of complacency.

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


noun,​

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


Thank you and this is a great question. No offense felt or taken.

I monitor these to see if they get out of committee. IF they get out of committee, THEN I call and write my representatives, both at the state and federal level. I have personally met with my state representative on these laws here in Nevada and was assured every time that they would go no where. Bu the ones that do not, then I go to the public comments at the state capitol. As for federal, again, I call my representative, as I have many times in the past.

I agree, we need to get involved, but not at EVERY turn, EVERY year, and EVERY stupid legislation. People worry for no reason. My favorite quote from Mark Twain:

"I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened."

 
OP
BjornF16

BjornF16

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Texas
In places with more rigid term limits, it simply increases the power of the lobbyists and the executive branch. It takes time to learn how these giant government entities work, and having a constant flow of rookies trying to learn the system just makes the whole thing less effective.

And the pension thing, wouldn't that simply encourage elected officials to use their influence for personal gain, knowing that they'd soon be without a job and without a financial safety net? I don't think that's a great idea.

Both ideas seem like good things on the surface, but there are always unintended consequences.
Do you mean to say that politicians don't currently use their influence (or insider knowledge) for personal gain, even though there are no term limits currently?


 

brocksw

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,027
Location
North Dakota
I like it. I'm good with 2 or 3 terms, then out!

No pension!

While we're at it, repeal the 17A and let state legislatures assign their senator. No more campaigning! No longer beholden to lobbyists, just their state.
My state legislature doesn't provide a lot of comfort in that scenario. I'd be in favor of outlawing lobbying again. Limiting donations to personal contributions with a very very very low limit or vouchers. Overturn Citizens United vs FEC. Have open debates and no advertising.

Make it about policy and ideas again. Politicians these days only talk about policy and ideas when it benefits them or when it's some political move (there's a couple exceptions). Notice republicans have kept nearly silent about the federal budget the last 4 years, even though in 2019 Trump proposed the largest budget in US history. Same in reverse, Democrats only cared about locking illegal aliens in cages when Trump was doing it, didn't say a word when Obama was doing it. It's all just political theater and no longer about good ideas.
 
OP
BjornF16

BjornF16

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Texas
Thank you and this is a great question. No offense felt or taken.

I monitor these to see if they get out of committee. IF they get out of committee, THEN I call and write my representatives, both at the state and federal level. I have personally met with my state representative on these laws here in Nevada and was assured every time that they would go no where. Bu the ones that do not, then I go to the public comments at the state capitol. As for federal, again, I call my representative, as I have many times in the past.

I agree, we need to get involved, but not at EVERY turn, EVERY year, and EVERY stupid legislation. People worry for no reason. My favorite quote from Mark Twain:

"I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened."

Great response...and I mostly agree with you.

However, if my Represenative or Senator is on a committee considering a bad bill, I will communicate with them.

Otherwise, it is when bills reach the floor.

Thanks for clarifying!
 

jaywes11

Newbie
Joined
Jan 22, 2021
Messages
3
Here is what Biden has announced that directly impact gun owners (2A) and hunting:

On his website, "Pres. Elect" Biden announced plan to:
1. Ban "assault weapons"
2. Ban "high capacity" magazines
3. Ban private transfers between friends and acquantances
4. Tax gun and ammunition sales
5. Ease restrictions on "red flag" laws, making it easier to confiscate guns based solely on accusations
<Edit:>
6. Limit gun purchases to 1 per month
7. Prohibit anyone who has misdemeanor conviction of "hate" or "bias" from purchasing firearm
8. End the so called "Charleston loophole" which limits background check wait period to 3 days
9. Ban anyone with arrest warrant from purchasing ammo or guns
10. Ban online sales of ammo, firearms, kits, gun parts
11. Grants to states to setup gun registration and licensing requirements

In case anyone doubts the veracity of the list above, here is the direct link to his website: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

<end edit>

See: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/01/bi...-cannot-beat-citizen-gun-lobby/#ixzz6jdVhWhjL

Please, stand together as gun owners and lobby your elected officials (and support some 2A lobby groups financially).

Edit 2: Removed today as date announced.
Uh oh
 
OP
BjornF16

BjornF16

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Texas
Going through the book I mentioned previously and found where I had highlighted this nugget.

Original text of 2A as proposed by James Madison:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”11

11. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, Charlene Bangs Bickford ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), vol. 4, at 9-10.

Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.
 
OP
BjornF16

BjornF16

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Texas
In his speech introducing the proposals, Madison acknowledged that a great number of people were dissatisfied with the Constitution and that he and his colleagues should “conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution.”18 He noted that “the first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights.”19 Madison conceptualized the different sources of the rights sought to be guaranteed as follows:

The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States, as well as the federal constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency....


Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.

(emphasis mine)

What I find interesting is that Madison (Federalist) ran against Mason (anti-Federalist) for a seat in the 1st Congress. Having previously dissed the need for a Bill of Rights, when running for office he changed his tune and campaigned on submitting a Bill of Rights. He won election and kept his promise.
 
OP
BjornF16

BjornF16

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Texas
Some die-hard federalists continued to scorn declarations of rights. Representative Fisher Ames of Massachusetts privately quipped:

Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments.... He has hunted up all the grievances and complaints of newspapers, all the articles of conventions, and the small talk of their debates. It contains a bill of rights, the right of enjoying property, of changing the government at pleasure, freedom of the press, of conscience .... Oh! I had forgot, the right of the people to bear arms.24

24.
Ames to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789, Works of Fisher Ames, Seth Ames ed. (New York 1854), vol. 1, at 52-53.

Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.

(emphasis mine)
 
OP
BjornF16

BjornF16

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Texas
The Bill of Rights was conceived to deny exercise of power whether by direct infringement or indirectly through exercise of a delegated power. Those federalists who still opposed a bill of rights pointed only to the lack of an explicit power over any of the proposed guarantees. Congressman James Jackson of Georgia argued: “The gentleman endeavours to secure the liberty of the press; pray how is this in danger? There is no power given Congress to regulate this subject as they can commerce, or peace, or war.”21 Madison had already responded to this argument using search and seizure as an example:


The general government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for the purpose, as well as for sorre purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the state governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the state governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the federal government.22


In other words, Congress has no delegated power to abridge freedom of the press or to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. But under the “necessary and proper” clause, it might seek to exercise a delegated power—such as collecting revenue—by issuance of general warrants. What became the Fourth Amendment would guard against such unreasonable search and seizure. Similarly, the exercise of the tax or commerce powers could not violate freedom of the press or the right to have arms.



Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.

(emphasis mine)

Too bad our SCOTUS has not seized upon this "original intent"...
 

Opah

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
542
Location
California, Inland Empire
"You have no clue how any gun rights issues will wind up being addressed in the USA. The fact that you think you can predict the future shows your lack of good judgement.'
It's is not predicting when you have the president and soon to be president stating they will write presidential orders banning all semiauto firearms.
They have confiscated firearms before and against a supreme court order still destroyed them.
They do not follow the laws and have demonstrated that over and over again.
 

Newtosavage

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,548
Location
In someone's favorite spot
Nukes aren't arms, didn't people explain this before? Arms are firearms. We should according to the 2nd Amendment own any type of firearm, however the 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon and we cannot. I'm not saying it would be good if there was no regulations on firearms, however I do say there is too much now. Way too much.
How do you measure "too much" though.
 

Newtosavage

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,548
Location
In someone's favorite spot
@Newtosavage

I really would like to hear why a Mini-14 is different than an AR-15...
Probably because I was originally trained on and issued a Mini, and only after 15 years with that rifle was I told I had to transition to an AR. To me, the Mini was a lot simpler weapon to learn on, and to operate under stress. But that's probably just because that's what I learned on. When I go after pigs these days, I have a mini-30 with me. It stops pigs faster than the mini-14 and I don't have to waste rounds on pigs I've already shot because they are still running.
 

Opah

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
542
Location
California, Inland Empire
Here's the Politifact check on the Feinstein comment.

Hoodie before you dabble in another states rep values know what you are talking about.
Feinstein and Boxer are anti gun been antigun and spouted more anti gun BS over the years than anyone could care to hear.
I am a born Californian, lived here all my life, so please if you are going to attempt to defend a BS antigun Political hack as pro gun make it your Oregon hacks.

Thank you very much
 
Top