GOP Is caving in on gun control

[red442joe]

Well, at least yous guys aren't banning me, like handgunforum.net, for the exact same post.
Y'all seem to be willing to discuss it.
Look, I may not be a nice guy, but no, I'm not gonna go kill some bubblegumhead politician. I do not care if some commie creep DIES anyway.
There may come a fight in this country. Lord knows there is enough stupid stuff going on.
If that fight happens, it will be to stop the government from.....something. At that point, yes, politicians will die, and gun control nonsense will stop.
Oh, and I worked very hard to make sure all the words and letters that needed to be in this post were there so what I said wasn't confusing.
I figure if you look at my post you should probably be able to figure out what I said.

Joe

 

[red442joe]

Yeah because the '68 GCA had nothing to with the assassination of JFK and little brother Bobby. Pure genius.

Huh?

Joe

 

[CamoDeafie]

Huh?

Joe

Jfk and bobby's deaths were the impetus for GCA1968.

 

[The Heretic]

Huh?

Joe

I can't speak for @titsonritz but I assume he meant that the '68 GCA was demonstrably and generally accepted as the result of the JFK and Bobby Kennedy assassinations, and that even saying that things would change if/when "politicians die" is counterproductive to our goals.

 

[CountryGent]

I can't speak for @titsonritz but I assume he meant that the '68 GCA was demonstrably and generally accepted as the result of the JFK and Bobby Kennedy assassinations, and that even saying that things would change if/when "politicians die" is counterproductive to our goals.

Precisely. I remember reading some magazine articles from that era when they were debating, then passed, GCA68. The two assassinations and the riots of that era were cited as reasons.

 

[American123]

Precisely. I remember reading some magazine articles from that era when they were debating, then passed, GCA68. The two assassinations and the riots of that era were cited as reasons.

"Never let a good tragedy go to waste" is part of the playbook and has been for a long time.

 

[CountryGent]

"Never let a good tragedy go to waste" is part of the playbook and has been for a long time.

Sad, but true.

 

[The Resister]

Is compromise possible? Republicans have gun control proposals too

The last time a president signed gun reform into law was over 25 years ago in 1994, and the most recent legislation isn't likely to break that streak with a 60-vote filibuster and Republicans who find the bills overreaching.

www.foxnews.com

You guys do realize these pieces of legislation just reiterate the same things we say all the time. You know "enforce existing laws". As it sits now, no one is taking responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of people trying to buy guns illegally. These bills aren't gun control, they are enforcement mandates.

No such laws should exist in the first place. I get really tired of trying to explain the hows and whys of gun control, especially the back door approaches. But, really, most of the 40,000 federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, court rulings, regulatory agency policies, etc., etc. are blatantly unconstitutional.

The hardest thing I've had to face on this board is attempting to explain how a non - related legal issue may impact your Right to keep and bear Arms. If nobody is taking the time to enforce the enormous amount of nonsensical gun laws, God bless them. We could reduce the numbers of firearm deaths and disarm the entire anti-gun lobby with the stroke of a pen. Put my proposals on the table that reduce firearm violence without gun control by getting down to the root of the problem, eliminating it and you won't need a pretext for unconstitutional gun laws that the political propaganda prostitutes pretending to be patriots have snowed you with... "enforce existing gun laws." Maybe some LEOs know which of those laws are B.S. laws and don't bother with them, IF what you say is true.

 

[Mikej]

The hardest thing I've had to face on this board is attempting to explain how a non - related legal issue may impact your Right to keep and bear Arms.

Well gaauulllee! I guess weer just to dang stoopid to understand whacher talkin' 'bout....

 

[The Heretic]

No such laws should exist in the first place. I get really tired of trying to explain the hows and whys of gun control, especially the back door approaches. But, really, most of the 40,000 federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, court rulings, regulatory agency policies, etc., etc. are blatantly unconstitutional.

The hardest thing I've had to face on this board is attempting to explain how a non - related legal issue may impact your Right to keep and bear Arms. If nobody is taking the time to enforce the enormous amount of nonsensical gun laws, God bless them. We could reduce the numbers of firearm deaths and disarm the entire anti-gun lobby with the stroke of a pen. Put my proposals on the table that reduce firearm violence without gun control by getting down to the root of the problem, eliminating it and you won't need a pretext for unconstitutional gun laws that the political propaganda prostitutes pretending to be patriots have snowed you with... "enforce existing gun laws." Maybe some LEOs know which of those laws are B.S. laws and don't bother with them, IF what you say is true.

 

[The Resister]

Well goooolllee! I guess weer just to dang stoopid to understand whacher talkin' 'bout....

See the reply by Heretic and then maybe you can explain to your fellow posters why gun owners lose all the time. Two steps forward, then three steps back. When you cannot ask questions and consider things you haven't heard, I won't be accusing you of being too smart.

 

[The Heretic]

See the reply by Heretic and then maybe you can explain to your fellow posters why gun owners lose all the time. Two steps forward, then three steps back. When you cannot ask questions and consider things you haven't heard, I won't be accusing you of being too smart.

The problem is, that while understanding first principles is important, even crucial, we are too far gone to advocate for returning to them with regards to laws, rules and regulations. The population is too well trained and brain washed to allow even a minute amount of progress towards that goal - it would take a total reset type of event to make any progress towards that kind of understanding - much less a systemic reworking of our government and society.

I've been trying to advocate for first principles for decades with little success. From the outset of the founding of this country, we have gone downhill from the principles that the Founding Fathers understood and tried to layout. Even those Founding Fathers themselves were corrupted by their own immediate need to stay in power and control others - e.g., the Sedition Act of 1798:

The Sedition Act of 1798 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

In one of the first tests of freedom of speech, the House passed the Sedition Act, permitting the deportation, fine, or imprisonment of anyone deemed a threat or publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government of the United States. The 5th Congress (1797–1799)...

history.house.gov

 

[The Heretic]

 

[The Resister]

The problem is, that while understanding first principles is important, even crucial, we are too far gone to advocate for returning to them with regards to laws, rules and regulations. The population is too well trained and brain washed to allow even a minute amount of progress towards that goal - it would take a total reset type of event to make any progress towards that kind of understanding - much less a systemic reworking of our government and society.

I've been trying to advocate for first principles for decades with little success. From the outset of the founding of this country, we have gone downhill from the principles that the Founding Fathers understood and tried to layout. Even those Founding Fathers themselves were corrupted by their own immediate need to stay in power and control others - e.g., the Sedition Act of 1798:

The Sedition Act of 1798 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

In one of the first tests of freedom of speech, the House passed the Sedition Act, permitting the deportation, fine, or imprisonment of anyone deemed a threat or publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government of the United States. The 5th Congress (1797–1799)...

history.house.gov

What you posted is THE reason that I am supporting The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. It is a total reset that does not depend on how the political hacks try to reinterpret the laws. You should support it too.

We will not win back the Right to keep and bear Arms by voting. We cannot change the minds of those who have been taken in by the liberals thinking that attacking gun ownership is any kind of solution, regardless of whether you are a Democrat or Republican; left or right; conservative or liberal. For those who want waiting periods, background checks, bans on classes of citizens that can "legally" own a firearm, and / or bans on the features we can or cannot have are diametrically opposed to the principles upon which this Republic was founded.

A LONG time ago, the people should have risen up and held this government accountable for not making good on the guarantee of a Republican Form of Government (see Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution). The lawful, legal, legitimate, and constitutional form of government in the United States is a Republican Form of Government that makes good on the guarantees of unalienable Rights. They have not done that and they have no legitimate authority over those who demand to have those Rights enforced or withdraw your consent to be governed. We cannot have a social contract that allows the government to use the courts, the LEO community, and the military to rule by force and fear. It's time for people to sign the charter and demand that their Rights be enforced. The Right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

[titsonritz]

I can't speak for @titsonritz but I assume he meant that the '68 GCA was demonstrably and generally accepted as the result of the JFK and Bobby Kennedy assassinations, and that even saying that things would change if/when "politicians die" is counterproductive to our goals.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[STONER_63]

Reciprocity (H.R. 38) passed the House. Then was killed in the Senate by McConnell (R), at a time when the Republicans had the House, Senate, and White House. The then POTUS had a campaign promise of signing said into law.

I missed this because I was overseas at the time. Why did Mitch kill it?

 

[CountryGent]

I missed this because I was overseas at the time. Why did Mitch kill it?

That I don't recall. Or if for that matter if a reasoning was even given.

 

[Hueco]

I missed this because I was overseas at the time. Why did Mitch kill it?

There was a loud noise...maybe a door slamming in the distance or possibly someone sneezed real loud...well, it caused the turtle to retreat into his shell. It wasn't that he didn't want to get to this bill, it's just that he didn't see it from the warm comfort of his safe space. When he finally pepped up, the bill was gone and...legend says...he said, "aww, shucks" as a single tear dropped from his eye.