Bidens Plan To End Gun Violence

Andy54Hawken

Messages
15,180
Reactions
73,515
Laws , bans , requirements , etc.. like Biden is purposing are useless in stopping violence.

I say useless because the only people they will affect are those that are law abiding and would not harm others in the first place.
It ain't like criminals are suddenly not going to use their now illegal firearms , for their already illegal activities.

Also it ain't the features of a firearm that makes it dangerous or deadly.
A person shot and killed with a antique flintlock will be just as dead as person who is shot and killed with the newest Infantry rifle.
One is dead , or not ....you can't be more dead.

No one will ever say :
"Gee I am glad that Johnny was shot and murdered by a guy using a gun that only held 10 or less shots and had no "Weapons of War" features."

As for being more deadly because of certain features or becasue the gun can fire from a magazine that holds more than , whatever number , one wishes to insert here....
Well No...that ain't true.
To be blunt , only hits count...and if you have a magazine that holds 100 rounds...and miss with them...all you have done , is make noise.
And a gun doesn't kill , by how it looks or its features....in fact , guns don't kill all.

A person now...A person can be deadly or dangerous.
That is the problem.

A firearm no matter of what type , no matter if loaded or not...is not deadly or dangerous...
What the person does with it , while they use , can be.

To borrow a popular phrase :
Gun ownership is not a crime....Stop trying to make it one.
Andy
 
Laws , bans , requirements , etc.. like Biden is purposing are useless in stopping violence.

I say useless because the only people they will affect are those that are law abiding and would not harm others in the first place.
It ain't like criminals are suddenly not going to use their now illegal firearms , for their already illegal activities.

Also it ain't the features of a firearm that makes it dangerous or deadly.
A person shot and killed with a antique flintlock will be just as dead as person who is shot and killed with the newest Infantry rifle.
One is dead , or not ....you can't be more dead.

No one will ever say :
"Gee I am glad that Johnny was shot and murdered by a guy using a gun that only held 10 or less shots and had no "Weapons of War" features."

As for being more deadly because of certain features or becasue the gun can fire from a magazine that holds more than , whatever number , one wishes to insert here....
Well No...that ain't true.
To be blunt , only hits count...and if you have a magazine that holds 100 rounds...and miss with them...all you have done , is make noise.
And a gun doesn't kill , by how it looks or its features....in fact , guns don't kill all.

A person now...A person can be deadly or dangerous.
That is the problem.

A firearm no matter of what type , no matter if loaded or not...is not deadly or dangerous...
What the person does with it , while they use , can be.

To borrow a popular phrase :
Gun ownership is not a crime....Stop trying to make it one.
Andy
Amen Brother! Well said. Gun owners need to stop supporting politicians who are, bite by bitestripping away Constitutional, Civil and God given Rights.

We should be demanding repeal of the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA. Period.

We should be demanding those who commit crimes with firearms be duly punished. Stop letting criminals skirt charges and get back on the streets to kill another day...
 
Messages
12
Reactions
9
A couple of thoughts here:

1. Biden admits that machine guns are rarely used for crimes because they're NFA items. I don't want my semi-autos to become NFA weapons, but if we end up stuck with Biden and we have to register them anyways, can we compromise on re-opening the machine gun registry so we can get some full auto conversion action? I know a lot of folks talk "no-comply" with firearms registry, but barring that, I don't see why we just couldn't convert semi autos to full auto if they're under the same NFA umbrella in the end.

2. Biden wants a 100% "smart gun" future. Reminds me of Metal Gear Solid 4, lol. Maybe we'll have to get injected with nanomachines matched to our guns. But seriously, does that mean we need to keep our guns charged up, otherwise they won't work? From an engineering perspective, this is absolutely idiotic.

3. Real-talk, I think the dumbest thing on this list is prohibiting online sales of ammo and gun parts. Does this extend to trigger kits and replacement springs? What if I have a niche platform that I need to repair, or if I have an obscure caliber I like to shoot? This is going to be a massive pain if I have to work with an FFL every time.

Here's hoping this plan falls through. I'm not voting for him.
 

XoXSciFiGuy

Messages
246
Reactions
571
(Before you come down on me TOO hard about this post, I will tell you I am a US Army vet, 1975-78, and I did NOT serve in Vietnam.)

I'm going to ask the obvious question:

If guns don't kill, and people DO...then how do you determine who should own a gun and who should not? Psych test? The reason so many proposals are being forwarded about guns is because so many people in America are being killed with guns each year.

The OTHER problem is that no one can agree what should be done. I wouldn't worry about direct confiscation by the government. That proposal is unrealistic. No one really knows the exact number of privately-held weapons in America, but it's been estimated somewhere around 400 million. Gun ownership in the USA per each 100 people is estimated at 120 guns. This is at least four times more than the next nearest country. So we are definitely jazzed with weapons in the USA. For confiscation to work, you would need a million more cops to try it, and a warehouse the size of New Jersey to store them all. It's like shutting the barn door after the horses have fled. If America had any ideas of banning or confiscating weapons, they should have done it more than a hundred years ago because it's WAY too late now. And let's face it...the history of this country is partially based on guns. There is also the 2A as well, and that is not easy to dismiss or 'get around' somehow.
(Side Note: In the early 1960's, Russian premier and famous anti-USA guy Nikita Khrushchev visited the US and was followed all around by the press. One of the questions they tossed at him was whether Russia had any ideas of invading us. Khrushchev said no, and the reason he gave was because the Russians figured everyone in America owned a gun.)
However...it is also true that the USA is nowhere near close to the top in the number of homicides by gun in the world. (per 100,000 residents, a fair way to measure this) It runs about 4.5 homicides per 100,000 citizens here in the USA. Some countries in Central or South America are between 20-30 per 100,000 people. Some countries, like Hondurus, the rate is a whopping 66 gun homicides per 100,000 people. On the other side of that, despite what lawmakers have done here and there, the total number of gun deaths has been increasing steadily since 2013. But not by a lot, such as if there were an epidemic going. You also have to account for the idea that this number might increase slightly due to the population growing here each year. It's also been WORSE occasionally than it is now. In 1993 the rate was over 9.0 per 100,000, and in 2006 it was slightly more than 6.0.

There is a difference though, between some of the countries that have higher rates of homicide-by-gun than the USA. Here in the USA, mass shootings, both in public and in schools, seems to be more common here than in other countries. This brings on a lot of bad press for gun owners, and it's unfair because in most of those cases you are not talking about responsible gun owners, but people who are just plain nuts and never should have gotten their hands on a weapon anyway.

So...as Keanu Reeves said in Speed: "What do you DO?" That's the trickiest question ever tossed at Americans in some years. If banning won't work, and restricting certain weapons doesn't lower the gun homicide rate, then why bother trying those things? And someone needs to come up with some ideas on what WILL work, even if it takes years to have a real effect. The anti-gun lobby folks keep pointing to the NRA and gun owners, saying that both these groups aren't coming up with any realistic ideas of their own...so they are the only ones doing the talking. They say gun owners just want the status quo and nothing more...and the anti-gun lobby folks aren't buying it.

The problem is to come up with a solution that actually gets mass shootings under control, and prevents or discourages people who should NOT own guns from OWNING them. But how do you do that without stepping on honest gun owners' toes? These are MY suggestions:

If you don't want criminals to have guns, or use them in crimes, then you have to be absolutely RUTHLESS about enacting some laws to discourage the use of guns in a crime, especially murder. Some examples: Crushing minimum sentences with no parole for anyone using a gun to commit a crime. Automatic life-without parole, no matter what, for anyone using a gun in a homicide. A very heavy sentence in prison simply for being in possession of a gun when you aren't supposed to own one. Right now, they just take away the weapon and usually the sentence isn't too bad. (Unless you have multiple priors for the illegal gun possession charge.) Instead of that, maybe a mandatory ten year sentence, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Now...implementing laws like this will take a while before they have any real effect. Maybe a decade. But after a while, people are going to realize that getting caught with a weapon when you aren't supposed to own one, or having a stolen one in your possession, or using one in a crime (especially a homicide) just isn't worth the risk. The rates of illegal ownership and homicides by gun will eventually begin to drop.

No laws will ever address the issue in a perfect-world manner. But at least THOSE laws would be aimed at the bad guys, not the good guys. Any other approach is more like firing a shotgun into the gun issue and hoping a few pieces of lead will hit the target...which they won't.

On another side note, I am also in favor of standardizing laws on weapons in America at the Federal level once and for all. Part of the problem is that every state, many counties, and even some cities have different (and often confusing) laws going. That proposal would not be easy to agree upon, but it would clear up a lot of confusion. If you combined an agreed-upon, fifty-state approach to gun laws, with those crushing prison sentences for the criminals and the jerks, it might solve much of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,268
Reactions
11,917
Who was it that said "the government that governs the least; governs the best" ?

Up until the 1968 CGA, a person who served time and released, had full right restored upon completion of their sentences, or they died in prison, either from old age, or executed.

It was after that that we started to see way more activist judges commuting sentences, and bringing the philosophy and legal doctrine of once a convicted criminal, always a criminal into being.
For almost 200 years; the system was that a citizen could be expected to regain full rights after serving time, if they didn't die in prison.

With about 43% of the entire worlds civilian arms in American hands; it just amazes some people that gun crime is not as widespread as the media makes it seem like :rolleyes:
 

XoXSciFiGuy

Messages
246
Reactions
571
Up until the 1968 CGA, a person who served time and released, had full right restored upon completion of their sentences, or they died in prison, either from old age, or executed.
The Feds still recognize this...mostly. It's some of the states who have this problem. Some have laws that only apply if you live IN that state and got in trouble there. In Washington state for example, you have to go into court to have gun rights restored. When they passed this law (1996 I think) some people got in trouble when they were caught with a gun because the state didn't bother sending out a message to everyone who had previously been restored. Now there is an entire legal business here with certain lawyers doing the whole thing for you and in most cases you don't even have to show up for the hearing. Average cost is $1,400 and you can't have any gun crimes or domestic violence records going.

I know this because a buddy of mine got hauled away by a Forest Ranger. Big surprise for him, and brother was he justifiably PISSED. He paid the money and got restored...but in a weird Catch 22...he couldn't do that until he was finished with the possession charge. (Five years later. No jail, but he had to wait five years for some reason or other.)
 
Messages
507
Reactions
1,188
If we get a pro 2A SC I bet congress holds back, whatever Bidens platform is its really the Senate and S.C. that matter this cycle. R.G.B. ironically may have saved the 2A for the next 20 years.
If wishes were fishes, this one is a Carp... bony, invasive, oily, and popular in ornamental settings. But it is not something you want to bet your life and your legacy on as a food source.

We have seen "the man from Hope", we have seen "hope and change", but hope tied to wishes and emotions instead of proven track record is dangerous.

Personally, I would not bet on the nature of the swamp or Democrats to hold back if unrestricted. They have been thwarted too much in the last 3 1/2 years and have much to make up for or in their view make right.

Be careful how you vote this November.
 
Messages
5,339
Reactions
8,158
I dont buy the harsher sentences thing. We already have the highest percentage of tis citizenry in jail compared to any other country and that really doesnt seem to be working well. It costs a LOT of money and there isnt much return on the investment . It also prompts a lot of social unrest as certain groups see their citizens locked up more than others , warranted or not, as an attack on their group in general. 5 yr vs 10 years vs 40 years doesnt seem to change the individual much. It keeps them off the street to be sure but at what cost. In any case it doesnt do a damn thing about mass shooting which are typically done by white guys who have been conditioned by video games to the extent killing doesnt mean the same thing to them as it does you you and I and are simply committing suicide and taking a lot of others out with them before they get killed or kill themselves.
 
Messages
184
Reactions
216
(Before you come down on me TOO hard about this post, I will tell you I am a US Army vet, 1975-78, and I did NOT serve in Vietnam.)

I'm going to ask the obvious question:

If guns don't kill, and people DO...then how do you determine who should own a gun and who should not? Psych test? The reason so many proposals are being forwarded about guns is because so many people in America are being killed with guns each year.

The OTHER problem is that no one can agree what should be done. I wouldn't worry about direct confiscation by the government. That proposal is unrealistic. No one really knows the exact number of privately-held weapons in America, but it's been estimated somewhere around 400 million. Gun ownership in the USA per each 100 people is estimated at 120 guns. This is at least four times more than the next nearest country. So we are definitely jazzed with weapons in the USA. For confiscation to work, you would need a million more cops to try it, and a warehouse the size of New Jersey to store them all. It's like shutting the barn door after the horses have fled. If America had any ideas of banning or confiscating weapons, they should have done it more than a hundred years ago because it's WAY too late now. And let's face it...the history of this country is partially based on guns. There is also the 2A as well, and that is not easy to dismiss or 'get around' somehow.

However...it is also true that the USA is nowhere near close to the top in the number of homicides by gun in the world. (per 100,000 residents, a fair way to measure this) It runs about 4.5 homicides per 100,000 citizens here in the USA. Some countries in Central or South America are between 20-30 per 100,000 people. Some countries, like Hondurus, the rate is a whopping 66 gun homicides per 100,000 people. On the other side of that, despite what lawmakers have done here and there, the total number of gun deaths has been increasing steadily since 2013. But not by a lot, such as if there were an epidemic going. You also have to account for the idea that this number might increase slightly due to the population growing here each year. It's also been WORSE occasionally than it is now. In 1993 the rate was over 9.0 per 100,000, and in 2006 it was slightly more than 6.0.

There is a difference though, between some of the countries that have higher rates of homicide-by-gun than the USA. Here in the USA, mass shootings, both in public and in schools, seems to be more common here than in other countries. This brings on a lot of bad press for gun owners, and it's unfair because in most of those cases you are not talking about responsible gun owners, but people who are just plain nuts and never should have gotten their hands on a weapon anyway.

So...as Keanu Reeves said in Speed: "What do you DO?" That's the trickiest question ever tossed at Americans in some years. If banning won't work, and restricting certain weapons doesn't lower the gun homicide rate, then why bother trying those things? And someone needs to come up with some ideas on what WILL work, even if it takes years to have a real effect. The anti-gun lobby folks keep pointing to the NRA and gun owners, saying that both these groups aren't coming up with any realistic ideas of their own...so they are the only ones doing the talking. They say gun owners just want the status quo and nothing more...and the anti-gun lobby folks aren't buying it.

The problem is to come up with a solution that actually gets mass shootings under control, and prevents or discourages people who should NOT own guns from OWNING them. But how do you do that without stepping on honest gun owners' toes? These are MY suggestions:

If you don't want criminals to have guns, or use them in crimes, then you have to be absolutely RUTHLESS about enacting some laws to discourage the use of guns in a crime, especially murder. Some examples: Crushing minimum sentences with no parole for anyone using a gun to commit a crime. Automatic life-without parole, no matter what, for anyone using a gun in a homicide. A very heavy sentence in prison simply for being in possession of a gun when you aren't supposed to own one. Right now, they just take away the weapon and usually the sentence isn't too bad. (Unless you have multiple priors for the illegal gun possession charge.) Instead of that, maybe a mandatory ten year sentence, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Now...implementing laws like this will take a while before they have any real effect. Maybe a decade. But after a while, people are going to realize that getting caught with a weapon when you aren't supposed to own one, or having a stolen one in your possession, or using one in a crime (especially a homicide) just isn't worth the risk. The rates of illegal ownership and homicides by gun will eventually begin to drop.

No laws will ever address the issue in a perfect-world manner. But at least THOSE laws would be aimed at the bad guys, not the good guys. Any other approach is more like firing a shotgun into the gun issue and hoping a few pieces of lead will hit the target...which they won't.

On another side note, I am also in favor of standardizing laws on weapons in America at the Federal level once and for all. Part of the problem is that every state, many counties, and even some cities have different (and often confusing) laws going. That proposal would not be easy to agree upon, but it would clear up a lot of confusion. If you combined an agreed-upon, fifty-state approach to gun laws, with those crushing prison sentences for the criminals and the jerks, it might solve much of the problem.
I won't come down on you too hard, but here is the reality:

The federal government does not have ANY jurisdiction to decide who may or may not own a firearm. It is an unalienable Right. Unalienable Rights are far different from "inalienable" rights given by government, privileges, or grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, God given, absolute, irrevocable Rights that courts ruled were above the law. Living under an illegal government, we no longer observe the law. But, in answer to your question, you don't get to decide who does and does not own a firearm. Neither will creating classes of citizens reduce gun violence. People retain their Rights under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic. If you let someone out of jail, prison or a mental institution when you don't think they can be responsible citizens, then maybe the problem is you.

Having said that, I studied the prevention side of this issue for approximately four decades. A couple of years ago an old high school classmate heard me approach a local gun group to talk about preventing firearm deaths. Afterward, he said that I'd been working on my ideas since high school (it was still the 1970s back then). I worked in law and I worked in lobbying. I've been a DFACS asset as a foster parent. So, every aspect of this issue has gotten equal amounts of research. Almost every year I approach legislators with the facts that we can identify virtually every mass shooter before they even touch a firearm. We know who they are going to be and we could intervene, without infringing on their constitutional Rights and address the issue while they are young. But, we don't. I won't presume to try and discuss this with you on this thread, but rest assured I could prevent at least 90 percent of all mass shootings before they happen and save the government a lot of money in the process. IF you're serious then start a thread asking the question and invite me OR PM me and ask that I start the thread. It's too detailed and would derail this thread.

Since we know, in advance who mass shooters will be, if we implemented the plan necessary to identify people and DO something about them, then the residual effect is that we would help others who would potentially commit an act of violence at some point in their lives. Since I do not believe in waiting periods, background checks, registration, gun bans, or even licensing for that matter, the solution will not fit on a bumper sticker. THAT is why nothing is done. I hate to say it, but when it comes to lobbying for their Rights, gun owners are lazy. They are reactionaries, not activists. But, if you are willing to read about 20 paragraphs I can give you the basic outline.
 
Messages
2,118
Reactions
3,211
If the Anti-Gunner/Communist politicians take control of Presidency and Congress, the Bill of Rights and Constitution will not prevent them from trampling on your rights and abolishing the very laws and foundations that have protected us from tyrannical decrees. As ol Benjamin Franklin said, Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what we are going to have for dinner. It is our Constitution and Bill of Rights that is our Foundation that prevents the wolves from getting their way. And, it is the Sheep Dogs that make sure the wolves don't forcefully abolish such fundamental laws and push their own agenda. America, as a whole has become much more anti-gunner (politically) and Communist. Many don't even pay attention to the Anti-Gunner legislation as they are just waiting for government handouts, being brainwashed by mainstream Goebbels style media and being told to be submissive, scared and spineless sheeple that only the big powerful government goons can save from their own demise.

Many are still waiting for their $2000/mo government paychecks taken from the "evil capitalists" (as they refer to them) to fund their lifestyle of eating Dairy Queen , sitting on the couch all day watching Netflix , which will keep them healthy and safe through the deadly Pandemic which only the ANti-Gunner/Communist can save them from. God forbid they go out to a gym or something and exercise or eat healthier food :eek:!

They want the police defunded as they claim there is a mass extermination of certain ethnic groups at their hands, but then claim that law-abiding gun owners are responsible for 99% of the murders in this country with their Assault Weapons and therefore must be completely disarmed, forcefully. And, who will do it, you may ask? Well, obviously not the disbanded police department. Most likely a military operation via Executive Orders which would make the country much more in line with other fascist dictatorships. Nope, just got to wait for Big Daddy Anti-Gunner/Commie government to come and save them from this terror and these radical "Right-Wing" extremists who are going around terrorizing all of society .. Nevermind, the Radical Left-Wing Anti-Gunner/Commie extremists who are actually burning, looting, robbing and destroying everything. Those they claim are just exercising their right to free speech and expression o_O. It is Pro-Gunner, Conservative, Hard Working, Constitution minded people they claim are causing all the problems and mayhem in our country and their solution is to use an Executive Order with military force to disarm these people as an emergency measure of National Security.

I hate to say this, but in my opinion, if the Anti-Gunner/Communist government takes the Presidency and Congress our country will devolve into civil conflict, as the Pro-Gunners and Anti-Gunners will not get along . I do believe somewhere during the Presidency an executive order will be issued and their will be legislation for national gun confiscation. I do believe our military will give the finger to the generals , politicians any other governing entity who demands they enforce such an unconstitutional measure. I also believe if we were willing to fight a Revolution over overtaxed tea , we are willing to fight a revolution over the abolition of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, which is one of the most precious and fundamental rights of any free citizen of a nation. It's worth fighting for and I do believe once the Pro-Gunners get a very hard slap in the face they will get off of their sofas, stop hiding from one another and there will be a major Right-Wing Revolt that will make pale in comparison, the Anti-Gunner Left-Wing terrorism we are seeing today. Instead of burning American flags and fighting for the destruction of America as the Anti-Gunner/Communist/Anarchist are doing, there will be large groups of people who will fight to protect the American flag and defend America's foundation.

Right now Pro-Gunners/Patriots are in a slumber and have been living with too much complacency and as with many times in history it will bring rise to the radicals, fascists and Anti-Gunner political parties and zealots. The sleeping giant will be awoken. I know America will not crash and burn without a fight. We are still a young country even though we live in a modern world. I do foresee a few Civil Wars and even secession of territory possibly before I see America just collapse and burn unanimously and that her precious Bill of Rights be reduced to a museum exhibit that is no longer taken to the letter.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,118
Reactions
3,211
Most if not all of his gun control ideas would be ruled illegal by the SCOTUS
Except if we get a Anti-Gunner Congress and Presidency they will turn the SCOTUS into a circus and pack the court with Anti-Gunner/Leftist judges. I don't put a lot of faith in the SCOTUS to save us with the plans I am seeing from the Anti-Gunner party. If the Anti-Gunners had it their way, all votes would be by mail and there would be no Electoral College.. They would probably abolish many Amendments in our Constitution's Bill of Rights as well via "re-writing" or "re-interpreting". I think we are in for some very dark times ahead looking at the polls today. Many Americans have their head buried in the sand just the same way we did before WWII when we were protesting against European Wars and wanting nothing to do with belligerence of Nazi Empire in Europe and Japanese Empire in Asia which we claimed had nothing to do with our well-being.
 

UPCOMING EVENTS

Free Firearms Safety Course (I-1639 Compliant)
Virtual Webinar (Zoom). Registration Link in the course description.
Seattle, WA, USA
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Gun Show
Battleground Community Center
912 E Main St, Battle Ground, WA 98604, USA
Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) Gun Show
Linn County Expo Center
3700 Knox Butte Rd E, Albany, OR 97322, USA

LATEST RESOURCE REVIEWS

  • Sportsman's Warehouse - Albany
    5.00 star(s)
    Good products at good prices with friendly and knowledgeable staff!
    We like to visit the Albany location as it's closer but have been to several others and they have all been great!:D
  • Umpqua Survival
    4.00 star(s)
    Easy NFA transfer
    I had a silencer transferred through their shop. The paperwork was quick and the staff helpful and friendly. Whilst waiting, I did see a nice...
  • MK Tactical
    5.00 star(s)
    Awesome staff
    Being new to the area and having just made an online purchase of an AR lower, I opted to use MK Tactical as my FFL, without knowing anything about...
  • J&B Firearm Sales
    5.00 star(s)
    Good local shop
    Picked up a rifle yesterday from J&B. This was the second or third gun purchase over the last few years from them. I always enjoy stopping by...
  • H&K Gun Shop
    5.00 star(s)
    The only place I have found 9mm in stock
    I’ll admit I didn’t even know this place existed, as I don’t tend to go into Forest Grove often. But it’s a giant (looks bigger from the...
Top Bottom