SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Here's A List of the Dems' Gun Control Plans
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Here's A List of the Dems' Gun Control Plans Login/Join 
Member
Picture of fpuhan
posted
In one (very lefty) form, here is a list of every Democrat candidate's gun control stance.

At first, I was going to comment on each. Then, since that would be too arduous, I was only going to comment on the most egregious.

But then I decided that to let the points "speak for themself." I will note that even those candidates who have no stated plan all support this nonsense about banning "assault weapons."

The madness just continues...




Don't believe everything you think.

NRA Benefactor/Patriot Member
 
Posts: 1667 | Location: Virginia, USA | Registered: December 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by fpuhan:
In one (very lefty) form, here is a list of every Democrat candidate's gun control stance.

At first, I was going to comment on each. Then, since that would be too arduous, I was only going to comment on the most egregious.

But then I decided that to let the points "speak for themself." I will note that even those candidates who have no stated plan all support this nonsense about banning "assault weapons."

The madness just continues...


No one is surprised.
 
Posts: 1910 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ugh.

Just curious, if the Fed govt somehow bans "assault weapons" (whatever that really means) and "high-capacity" magazines (ditto), does that effectively mean that pre-ban weapons are still fully legal, and that when the law(s) come into force, those items legally defined as the above would be banned? In short, they cannot simply outlaw previously legally-obtained items, right?
 
Posts: 2661 | Location: Alexandria, VA | Registered: March 07, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Batty67:
Ugh.

Just curious, if the Fed govt somehow bans "assault weapons" (whatever that really means) and "high-capacity" magazines (ditto), does that effectively mean that pre-ban weapons are still fully legal, and that when the law(s) come into force, those items legally defined as the above would be banned? In short, they cannot simply outlaw previously legally-obtained items, right?


They already have. Look up the bumpstock ban. Anyone who owned one had to turn it in or destroy it with no compensation, or keep it and become a felon.
 
Posts: 1910 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
True. If convicted.

But bumpstocks are/were so niche compared to...I dunno, say semi-automatic rifles. I saw the bumpstock ban, since NRA did not fight it (at least much) as essentially a concede the point issue rather than fight it out measure.

How can the feds simply make hundreds of billions of dollars of anything illegal given the second amendment without compensation.

Good thing this is gun control forum.
 
Posts: 2661 | Location: Alexandria, VA | Registered: March 07, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
I seriously doubt that the federal government could get away with banning popular firearms without a fair value buyback program which may take years to get settled in the courts not that I believe it would ever come to that. Without a buyback program the turn in rate would be much less than otherwise or people would sell on the black market. Then there is the issue of what if those in power get thrown out in favor of those who will make firearm ownership legal again which further will make firearm owners reluctant to turn in firearms under a new ban. If states that have implemented firearm bans already are an indication of what to expect, a very small number of firearm owners would actually turn in their firearms. I also would not be surprised to see "sanctuary" states for gun owners that will not follow federal gun ban laws because they are unconstitutional. All in all it would be a huge mess like doing the liquor prohibition all over again trying to turn tens of millions of previously peaceful law abiding citizens into criminals.


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
― Margaret Thatcher
 
Posts: 8922 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
What’s the fair market value of something that’s banned from ownership? Not much, I think.
 
Posts: 1910 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
People will believe what they wish. No amount of logic or reason will change that. Gun owners, and people in general, NEED a bogeyman. They have zero idea of what actually goes on because their need for fearmongering overcomes all common sense.

If you live in a communist held state, you might get arrested and convicted. And that is a conservative "might".

If you live in a free state, you won't be charged federally, let alone even tried.

Let that sink in for a minute. I know, but, but, but.......

It is a reality. Federal juries are made up of regular people. If you live in a shithole where these regular people have no moral compass, well, that's on you. AUSA's won't take on cases they can't win. They have way too many other cases that they can win. They are overloaded. The federal system is overloaded.

People bang the drum of "turn millions of law abiding citizens into criminals" as if the day a law goes into effect ATF is going to be going all WACO on you. Let me ask you this. How many raids, search warrants, etc have you heard of on bump stock confiscation? All these law abiding citizens who were turned into criminals with the stroke of a pen. How many? (I'll wait). Ok, how many bump stock charges have you heard of where someone is caught on another federal felony, and a secondary charge is levied for possessing a bump stock? (Again, I have Netflix so I will wait for the long time that you will be gone looking).

The bottom line. If you live in a state to where the mere ownership of a firearm is already a strike against you, I'd would worry a little bit. Because you aren't smart enough to see that they are already using YOUR money to fund their anti-gun war through the taxes you pay.

If you live in a free state, it's all good.


_______________________________________________________________________
www.opspectraining.com

"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011



 
Posts: 32886 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not fear mongering or giving in to it...but given that the majority of Dem candidate wannabees support some sort of assault ban, I got to think about it. How would that work if made federal? I thought pre-ban (pre-1994) assault ban weapons were grandfathered in.
 
Posts: 2661 | Location: Alexandria, VA | Registered: March 07, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Batty67:
Not fear mongering or giving in to it...but given that the majority of Dem candidate wannabees support some sort of assault ban, I got to think about it. How would that work if made federal? I thought pre-ban (pre-1994) assault ban weapons were grandfathered in.


The '94 so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban is finis, kaput, no esta aqui, game over- thanks for playing. It sunsetted (is this a word?...I'm making it a word for this post) almost 15 years ago. Therefore, at the federal level, with the expiration of the law, there is no "grandfather" provision. No "Assault Weapon" ban= no need for grandfather provision. Now, where the "Assault Weapons" ban comes into play is at the state level, for those states that enacted "Assault Weapons" bans of their own, with many writing their state laws based on the framework of the federal ban wording (note not all the laws are worded the same and some cities have adopted legal wording that define "assault weapon" differently)...which is why many such guns, magazines, and features are still relevant in these states and cities.

The bottom line is that you need to connect your flux capacitor to your crystal ball and start hand cranking it into Operational mode...as soon as you tell us the specific wording of any new legislation we can then comment on what it attempts to ban or restrict and whether any such grandfathered guns or features will be exempt...until then speculation is futile.

As radical as the Democrat gun grabbers were back then the Grandfather clause was added to the '94 ban in an attempt to make it more "palatable" politically, and to avoid the "hot potato" of inciting riots by gun owners and sending government forces door-to-door...make no mistake about it, if they could have accomplished it politically they would have done it. But, given how rabidly anti-gun the Progressive Left has become their idiocy knows no bounds...pragmatism be damned, so I wouldn't hold out much hope of another grandfather clause IF they were able to somehow pass another federal ban...unless including a grandfather provision was the only way to get the law passed.
 
Posts: 4397 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
My thought is that in the 1994 ban compare how many "assault rifles" were around then compared to now. They would have to grandfather them because tracking or confiscating would be a nightmare. also even in liberal states like NY & CT where you are supposed to register your rifles compliance is at less than 20%. Even after Sandy Hook Obama and his controlled Congress could not get it passed.


Why are we encouraged not to judge all Muslims by the lunatics BUT are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the very few lunatics? Ironic?
 
Posts: 1509 | Registered: May 26, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bjor13
posted Hide Post
is this true? It would surprise me if it is

Reverse the Trump administration decision to narrow the definition of “fugitive of justice,” which currently allows for fugitives with warrants to purchase guns.
 
Posts: 970 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: September 26, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Bookers Bourbon
and a good cigar
Picture of Johnny 3eagles
posted Hide Post
It would be a monumental task, costing many millions of man hours and billions of dollars to just compile a list of lawfully SOLD "assault weapons. Then, add to that the nightmare task of tracking down each lawful purchaser. Ain't gonna happen.

If the idea of going to EVERY house in the country to get weapons, how many people would it take? Ain't gonna happen.

Pass a law and tell everyone to turn 'em in? Ain't gonna happen.



I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart...
Shoot, I forgot where I was going with this, but I do know that I love bacon.

 
Posts: 4241 | Location: Arkansas  | Registered: November 06, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Plowing straight ahead come what may
Picture of Bisleyblackhawk
posted Hide Post
Can’t get much clearer than this from Crazy Uncle “touchy-feely” Joe...”BINGO”...




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/uq4vPgyRQY8


********************************************************

"we've gotta roll with the punches, learn to play all of our hunches
Making the best of what ever comes our way
Forget that blind ambition and learn to trust your intuition
Plowing straight ahead come what may
And theres a cowboy in the jungle"
Jimmy Buffet
 
Posts: 9673 | Location: Southeast Tennessee...not far above my homestate Georgia | Registered: March 10, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
They sure like to use the term 'loophole'

More opinion climate shaping
 
Posts: 9150 | Location: Wine Country | Registered: September 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Good, Joe Biden is showing his true intentions as a huge gun banner.

There will be no semi automatic weapon ban as long as we have President Trump. IMO even if he somehow loses in 2020 we still won't see it. Last time it caused a whole lot of senators to lose their re election bids. Running for senator is very expensive and the term 6 years. To get the needed 60 votes for a permanent ban (unless a new law rescinds) any democrat senators in red or red leaning states would be on a suicide mission and I don't see that happening again.

The bigger concern to me is the number of gun owners vowing not to vote for President Trump in 2020 because his stance on bump stocks or that he is even talking about red flag laws with due process. Roll Eyes But if there is a democrat president and congress in 2020 they will have the satisfaction of saying "I sure showed him!". Roll Eyes


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
― Margaret Thatcher
 
Posts: 8922 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of pulicords
posted Hide Post
Leftist politicians cater to those with short term memories by using tactics that rely on fear. Conservatives pay more attention to history and have long term memories. When fear of being a victim of a mass shooting subsides, the "liberal" voter loses enthusiasm. The conservative remembers , then votes and contributes to his or her cause (i.e.: fighting firearms confiscation).


"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
 
Posts: 8630 | Location: The Free State of Arizona | Registered: June 13, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of smlsig
posted Hide Post
After reading that article if you don’t have enough semi auto guns and magazines you have no one to blame but yourself...

One thing to consider if these loons get elected and are able to pass such draconian laws they will also track anyone buying 5.56 etc. ammo as a way to verify that no one has an AR...


------------------
Eddie

Our Founding Fathers were men who understood that the right thing is not necessarily the written thing. -kkina
 
Posts: 4025 | Location: SML & OBX | Registered: February 19, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Julian Castro got interviewed on Sunday and went through his list of restrictions that took a couple of minutes. For those without a scorecard, he is ALSO running for president. Sometimes I can't believe what is coming out of their mouths.
 
Posts: 300 | Location: East Texas | Registered: June 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
ichi-go ichi-e
Picture of Underworld2086
posted Hide Post
I've seen some people suggest that we tax assault weapons to discourage people from purchasing them. This seems like the NFA to me. Some people think the NFA is unconstitutional but as it stands there is precedent for taxing "classes" of weapons.
 
Posts: 686 | Location: Kailua, HI | Registered: June 24, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Here's A List of the Dems' Gun Control Plans

© SIGforum 2019