Post: #1

With the Democrats in control of the house, how likely do people see the chance of more gun-control being passed? I think it's out of the question, given the GOP has a majority in the senate, but I'm curious what others think.

Post: #2

No unless some Rhinos go for gun control, the NRA would have a fit.

Watch this to learn how your country works:
Www://youtube.com/watch?v=FqudId1vN3s

Post: #3

I doubt it, the gun lobby is strong. If we survived Obama when he had congress, we will survive a house only dem congress.

There are two things that worry me long term. One is that pro-gun democrats are rapidly disappearing. The same thing happened to pro-life dems, they don't exist anymore. The left is good a purging non-believers from positions of power in their party. The left doesn't have a Flake or Paul that will do their own thing for better or worse(usually worse).

The second thing is that unless we can start locking up the loonies, turn back the shift toward single-motherhood and stop jail break reform from happening, we will see mass shootings and violent crime in general rise over the next generation. People cry about the US and mass incarceration but the truth is that mandatory sentencing coincides exactly with the decline in violent crime highs of the 90's. Sure a lot of prisoners have been sent to prison for drug trafficking, but that also means they weren't on the street creating unsolved murders, rapes, thefts and assaults. Guns will take the fall because addressing issues such as nuclear family and mental health rights ends with questioning the worldview of the left.

Post: #4

My state passed this crazy gun law, Initiative 1639

Quote:Under the measure, no dealer could deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to a purchaser until:

The purchaser provides proof that they have completed a recognized firearm safety training program in the last five years including instruction on basic firearm safety, secure gun storage, the safety of children and firearms, suicide prevention, safe handling, and state and federal firearm law; and
The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or sheriff in the jurisdiction of the purchaser's residence that the purchaser is eligible to own a firearm and that the application to purchase is approved. Under the measure, the chief of police or sheriff must use the national instant criminal background check system established under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and other databases and information centers to determine whether a person is eligible to possess a firearm.[2]

WTF? I need a permission slip from my sheriff to buy a gun now? The last time I asked the sheriff's office to purchase something was when I was ordering a suppressor for my fs2k.

Quote: An applicant for the purchase of a firearm must sign and deliver an application to the dealer which includes the applicant's name, address, date of birth, race, gender, driver's license number or state ID number, a description of the firearm and manufacturer's number.

The application to purchase a firearm would, under the measure, be required to include the following warning:[2]
“

CAUTION: The presence of a firearm in the home has been associated with an increased risk of death to self and others, including an increased risk of suicide, death during domestic violence incidents, and unintentional deaths to children and others.[4]

Sounds like those anti-smoking messages they put on packs in germany.

And now a ten day waiting period for buying a semi-auto rifle (ruger 10/22 and up)

Quote:Uner the measure, a dealer could not deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to a purchaser until ten business days have passed from the date of the application for purchase.

And now gun safes/locks are required:

Quote:Firearm storage requirements

Under the measure, a person who left a firearm in a place where a prohibited person (someone who is prohibited from firearm possession under state or federal law) could potentially gain access to the firearm would be guilty of community endangerment, a class C felony, if a prohibited person gained access to the firearm. Under the measure, when selling a firearm, every dealer would be required to offer to sell or give the purchaser a gun storage device such as a trigger lock designed to stop unauthorized use of the firearm. Additionally, every place where firearms are sold would be required to display the following sign, in block letters (capitalized) and at least one inch in height:[2]
“

WARNING: YOU MAY FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF YOU STORE OR LEAVE AN UNSECURED FIREARM WHERE A PERSON WHO IS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS CAN AND DOES OBTAIN POSSESSION. [4]
”

Under the measure, violators would be guilty of a class 1 civil infraction and could have been fined up to $250.
Age requirements

Hopefully the burglars who break into my house give my a minute while I fumble with keys for my gun lock.


There's more but I'm too irate right now.

Post: #5

The safe storage firearms laws are more Stalinist than some people think.

Police officers in Australia are known for conducting random inspections during business hours when they know the man of the house will be at work and then asking the wife/minor to tell them where the gunsafe keys are "because we just need to check the serial numbers against our database". If the wife/minor shows them where the keys are (or provides them with the code) then the owner is charged with a felony and by the time he gets home all his guns will be gone because the police have proven he's created access for unauthorized persons.

There are some instances where wives have feigned ignorance of the location of the keys/code and the attending officers have threatened them with being charged with failure to comply with a lawful order.

Be warned. Laws that seem well-meaning or benign are often leverage for extremely Orwellian enforcement, and it wont be your local yokel that's doing the jackboot routine, it will be a ladder-climbing scumbag from the head office a hundred miles away looking for scalps to line his resume with.

Post: #6

@spokepoker: sounds like too many California transplants in Washington state.

@Leonard: what many people (all over the political spectrum) tend to overlook is how the enforcement plays out, and what kind of people it attracts. Some people think nothing of ruining others' lives to further their careers.

One such example I've heard of was a district attorney in California who tried to prosecute a guy at a Renaissance fair who had some short swords tucked into his boots. Now California law is pretty lax on fixed-blade knives -- you can carry them in public as long as they are not concealed.

So on what grounds did the DA attempt to prosecute the man? The knife law specifically mentioned wearing knives and swords on one's belt, but it wasn't clear whether it was simply an example of carry or a strict requirement for carry. The DA tried to push for the latter interpretation.

The jury ruled in the defendant's favor. But we can see what the DA was trying to send him to jail for: not for having swords, but for wearing them in his boots instead of on his belt.

Post: #7

They will try but nothing of significance will get through the Senate/Trumps veto. In 2 years if Trump loses though, stock the fuck up.

Post: #8

Short answer: Nope.

Why? Just like Republicans with abortion, every party needs their Emmanuel Goldstein boogeyman to raise fund$ against.

There are industries built around “getting rid” of guns (and abortion). They’re Golden Gee$e. Never happening.

Post: #9

Take this with a grain of salt (could be a publicity stunt) but in 2015 Dan Bilzerian claimed LAPD took his guns without a warrant after a group of people attempted to break into his mansion:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...without-w/

Also relevant: FPS Russia.

Point is if an A list celebrity can have his guns taken away what's stopping the authorities from making up some phony charges to take your guns away? I may carry bulk food and medical supplies but have always been iffy about storing firearms. Government sucks :/

Post: #10

It doesn't really matter if Trump is in charge or Republicans control the senate, gun control can still happen in states. Many cucked after the Parkland...situation, and passed knee-jerk gun control that any person with basic reasoning would know will not solve anything. Slow erosion of citizens constitutional rights is all it accomplished.

One of those states was governed by Rick Scott, a newly elected Republican senator and he made it clear he was in support of the measure. We weren't even safe with Republicans in control of the house, senate, and executive branch. So I won't be holding my breath.

Post: #11

As time marches on the functional divider for Secession states and Federal Tyranny states will be their push-to or pull-away from gun control.

It shouldn't escape notice that federal funding per capita is usually directly proportional to a loss of rights. You kiss the ring or you go hungry.

Post: #12

I would have thought, the mere fact that the Senate is GOP led. Would make any attempt at passing bills for gun control a pointless act.
I suppose Democrats do pointless acts rather well though...

From Voxday :

Quote:How totally surprising
Democrats are going to run on gun control in 2020. Can you spell TRUMPSLIDE?

Newly ascendant Democrats are promising congressional action on gun control amid a rash of mass shootings, including a late-night assault at a California bar that killed 12 people. Measures including expanded background checks and a ban on assault-style weapons are likely to reach the House floor when Democrats retake control after eight years of Republican rule.
“The American people deserve real action to end the daily epidemic of gun violence that is stealing the lives of our children on campuses, in places of worship and on our streets,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader who is running for a second stint as House speaker.
Pelosi vowed to push for a range of actions to stem gun violence, including restrictions on high-capacity magazines and a measure allowing temporary removal of guns from people deemed an imminent risk to themselves or others.

They never, ever, learn. They never will learn. Because NPCs lack the capability.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-t...ising.html

Post: #13

The House can't do shit without the Senate. Their only thing is that they have first dibs on the budget and they get to impeach (indict) officials for trial before the Senate.

Whatever the house passes is nothing without the Senate. They can pass whatever they want but it'll be like the pre-Trump cucked Paul Ryan house trying to fight Obama.

Trump's winning move is getting acting AG Bane cool on the cannabis issue, agreeing and amplifying with the radical portion of the Dems, and passing the most generous possible cannabis legislation to stone the Pantsuits out of contention in 2020. The National Socialists were fought with rifles, the Gibs Me Dat Socialism you kill the enemy by giving them permission to dope themselves off the chessboard. It won't win any soyboy cuck converts, but it can take some of the black vote for Trump while making quite a few shitlibs too stoned to act.

Trump can play productively with a split congress and the Pantsuit can't.

Post: #14

It won't happen at the federal level because of the Senate and Presidential veto, but some unconstitutional laws might be passed at the state level.

The republicans tried this with abortion - parental consent, waiting periods - but those were struck down.

To elaborate, in the 80s and 90s several states passed laws that restricted, but did not eliminate abortion. Waiting periods, parental notification, etc. Ostensibly things that had valid, ulterior purposes, but really the goal was fewer abortions. Most or all of these got struck down. This is not black and white in the constitution, rather, this is where judges decide what the law is.

The Dems could try this with gun control but its likely to get shot down. The things have been allowed are limits on military type weapons - automatic fire, grenades, etc. - and screening people off of a list. Perhaps the biggest risk for future legislation is to keep people with mental illnesses from getting a gun, which is a good idea in theory until you end up on the list because you had to go to diversity training or anger management.

The silver lining is that as Trump packs the courts with his nominees the more the old laws and bad precedents get struck down.

Post: #15

(11-10-2018 11:21 PM)BBinger Wrote:  The House can't do shit without the Senate. Their only thing is that they have first dibs on the budget and they get to impeach (indict) officials for trial before the Senate.

Whatever the house passes is nothing without the Senate. They can pass whatever they want but it'll be like the pre-Trump cucked Paul Ryan house trying to fight Obama.

Trump's winning move is getting acting AG Bane cool on the cannabis issue, agreeing and amplifying with the radical portion of the Dems, and passing the most generous possible cannabis legislation to stone the Pantsuits out of contention in 2020. The National Socialists were fought with rifles, the Gibs Me Dat Socialism you kill the enemy by giving them permission to dope themselves off the chessboard. It won't win any soyboy cuck converts, but it can take some of the black vote for Trump while making quite a few shitlibs too stoned to act.

Trump can play productively with a split congress and the Pantsuit can't.

Also worth noting that if there is a 'Legalize Weed?' type question on the ballot for a given state, that increases turnout for Lefties. Legalizing it at the Federal level will cut that out.