Donald Trump
AP Photo/Evan Vucci

It seems that Attorney General William Barr isn’t having an easy go of trying to sell President Trump’s trial balloon proposal on background checks and “registration” or record-keeping requirements to Republicans on Capitol Hill.

As The Hill reported this morning,

A proposal floated by Attorney General William Barr to dramatically expand background checks for gun sales is falling flat with a key conservative: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has warned of potential backlash from the right.

Cruz is worried that Barr’s proposal, which largely mirrors the 2013 background check amendment sponsored by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), could move Democrats in the direction of supporting confiscation of certain firearms.

Cruz is instead pushing his own proposal with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to fix holes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and crack down on straw purchasers of firearms who turn around and sell them to prohibited individuals or middlemen.

America’s gun owners are simply heartbroken to hear that the rush to enact more restrictions and hurdles to lawful firearms purchases isn’t going well. Maybe that’s because the proposals being floated are so obviously based on false premises and some could actually be unconstitutional (see Matt Larosiere’s excellent breakdown of the half-baked ideas below).

Bottom line: none of this would impact “gun violence” or mass shootings in the slightest. If enacted, the proposals would, instead, make civilian purchases and ownership of firearms more expensive and onerous. And anything that moves us closer to registration is both illegal and dangerous.

It seems even United States senators are capable of discerning that.

As a result, the White House is now actually trying to distance itself from the entire thing.

As far as the document circulating on the Hill, (White House spokesman Hogan Gidley) added: “That is not a White House document, and any suggestion to the contrary is completely false.”

All of which is probably why Trump is now tamping down expectations . . .

By Zeke Miller – Associated Press

President Donald Trump is pouring cold water on prospects for a bipartisan compromise on gun legislation, even as his aides circulate a draft plan on Capitol Hill.

Trump tells Fox News in an interview aired Thursday no deal is imminent. Six weeks after mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, Trump says, “We’re going very slowly.”

Trump says he doesn’t want “bad people” to have weapons, but won’t allow any plan to move forward that takes guns away from law-abiding people.

Trump says Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s call last week to confiscate AR-15-style rifles has made it more difficult for Republicans to make an agreement. Trump says: “A lot of people think this is just a way of taking away guns.” He adds he won’t let that happen.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

151 COMMENTS

      • It isn’t poisoning the well. It is poison pill and it does work, and is legitimate aspect of legislation strategy for hundreds of years.

        • I want $200,000,000,000 in border WALL funding thats what illegals have cost us this year alone, it will likely be $250Bn by years end. I want an additional $200bn spent on ICE to contract out every bounty hunter, private investigator, mall ninja, and red neck to round up all the illegals and kick them back over the big new beautiful border wall.

          Bundle that with universal background checks, and I may entertain it.

    • I’ve been thinking this as well, and have been in agreement with others here who have called for calmer heads to prevail until this pans out and we know more details.

      I think he wants to be seen as “doing something” by as many people as possible in the political center in prep for Election 2020. But doing something isn’t the same as actually passing something as law. This is still all kabuki theatre at this point.

      • They should do the same background checks they do when you apply for a carry license, finger prints and all.

        • Those checks aren’t “instant” though.

          I do agree in one part though — the carry license background check doesn’t require you to identify which firearms you’re intending to buy, even through serial number. Serial numbers have no place in a “background check” system and are not related to a “background check” in any way.

          Call or write your Senators, and demand that they forever extinguish the threat of a national “backdoor registry” by insisting that any “background check” bill be about BACKGROUND CHECKS, pure and simple, with no serial numbers or identifying of any intended firearm purchase.

          Nancy Pelosi has already said that any legislation MUST include the house-passed UBC bill, which of course keeps the form 4473 as-is and extends it to all purchases, thus creating a backdoor national registration scheme. This is the underpinning of all their efforts. If you want to defeat the background check bill, the simplest way is to de-link it from registration. As soon as you do that, not even Democrats will support a “universal background check” bill.

        • Robert says:
          September 19, 2019 at 12:49
          They should do the same background checks they do when you apply for a carry license, finger prints and all.

          Every time?

          My credentials haven’t changed since last time I bought one & even then it’s on the government to prove that I’ve done something in the interm.

          Cruz is right. If yout want to do something improve what already exists. UBCs will be a total failure as well if the same information is used as NICS is now.

        • Robert,

          Wisconsin does not require fingerprints for carry permits, and I don’t think fingerprints should be required.

        • Originally in TX, fingerprints were required not only for the original carry license, but for each renewal, because it was illegal for the government to retain your fingerprints. I found that fascinating, since the gov’t had not only my fingerprints, but my footprints as well, and definitely kept them at least until I retired. That was because I was a pilot/aircrew member and participated in the occasional war, for truly gruesome reasons.

      • I doubt it’s either. I think he looks for deals that he can boast about – which makes it critical to push back on nonsense like this so-called “trial balloon” so he understands it will never, ever be boast-worthy (and will, rather, turn into an express lane to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory). Trump doesn’t play 3D chess. He reacts to carrots and sticks, just like all politicians. Now and then, he needs his base to brandish the stick and make him contemplate how much it will hurt if they decide to use it.

  2. We are tired of ‘ compromise ‘ where gun rights are still lost not upheld.
    Pass whatever you like , we’re done obeying. We will build our own weapons and never register them.

    • Compromise implies that both sides give and get something in return. I’m not seeing anything about national reciprocity, deregulating suppressors, or repealing the NFA or Hughes amendment. This is watching a guy we thought we could trust fuck us in the ass in slow motion.

      • YES!!!!
        Absolutely, for each restriction proposed by the gun-grabbers, we should be countering with a demand for full restoration of th 2A.

        The more they demand, the more we demand.

        • Let’s start by demanding that they too have to own guns. Beat them at their own game so to speak.

          Although I don’t really agree with that in practice just in theory. If I have the right to own guns they have the right to not own them.

      • Very true. I’ve sent an email to the White House. I hope everyone that feels the same does as well. Just bitching on a comment board will not solve anything.

  3. Don’t worry about what Trump says, watch what he does. I think ( Just my humble opinion ) that this is a delay tactic, (not pleased about the bump-stock thing ,silly device anyway, but banning piece of plastic is ridiculous ) I don’t see a “inhanced” BGC going anywhere, and certainly no buy-back/confiscation nonsense. But good excuse to stock up on more guns and ammo.

    • Agreed. Even if Trump’s innate stated beliefs on the 2nd can’t be trusted, his desire for reelection is overriding. He isn’t going to screw his chances this close to November 2020.

      • You’re right.

        He’ll wait until 2021, when he no longer has to answer to us or anyone else.

        That’s why we need to keep the Senate on our side, get as strong a majority of pro-2A Senators as possible. Ted Cruz is just a start.

    • It’s not that they were banned, but how they were banned that is so concerning. Using an agency to change a definition and make illegal a piece of plastic by calling it a machine gun does not seem very constitutional.

  6. The only background check change that would be acceptable is direct access to NICS for transferors to check transferees prior to delivering the firearm(s) and get a confirmation number for their PRIVATE bill of sale. Then background checks on all transfers wouldn’t be an issue.

    No firearm(s) information shall be in the posession of anyone other than the transferor and transferee.

    • Any background check requirement is an assumption of guilt before innocence, and a delay to one’s natural right.

      Somehow this nation existed for almost two centuries without BGC, and we flourished.

    • If there is a tracking number names are forever linked. If doesn’t matter that nothing records the fire arm. It gives the government a path to follow. You can never say you sold a gun without providing the trail to where it went.

    • I agree with Max. In addition, the firearm being sold doesn’t need to be identified, nor does the *seller*. And the entire operation must be free to both buyer and seller, cost borne by taxpayers, since it is of no benefit to either buyer or seller. And Glut, the only time you would disclose that number would be if the arm was being traced in reference to a crime, which would be a terribly expensive and time consuming project, I suspect very rare.

  7. As a Republican politician once told me years ago. They (democrats) will never like you. You can vote with them most of the time….they still won’t like you. They loved McCain when he voted with them. Hated him until he died, then loved him again. As long you are their useful idiot, they’ll be your friend.

    • He was my first pick too. I was sorely disappointed in him when he flip-flopped and started kissing the orange one’s ass, but — in retrospect, they’ve all done it, he was just smart enough to do it sooner.

      I would vote for Cruz over Trump all day long.

  11. “The only background check change that would be acceptable is direct access to NICS for transferors to check transferees prior to delivering the firearm(s) and get a confirmation number for their PRIVATE bill of sale.”

    Couple of things wrong with that. First private sales are not FFL holders and contribute nothing like FFL holders do by paying a annual fee for the license. Second there is a form for NICS checks, form 4473. Personally I don’t want the headache of record keeping every time I sell a gun. This is all crap. I have bought and sold or traded A LOT of guns over the years. Both from FFL’s and individuals. The ones I have sold or traded have never caused law enforcement to come knocking on my door because one of those firearms had been used in the commission of a crime. I also won’t sell or trade a gun to just anyone though. I sell or trade to people I know or people that know the people I know. That is actually a pretty large group of people that like guns and like to shoot. What we need is for people to make smarter decisions and for the laws that we currently have to be enforced as the should be.

    • Just because you didnt get a knock doesnt mean one of your guns wasnt involved in a crime or turned up in south america. Only because I am friends with my FFL did I find out the FBI and ATF called to inquire about two guns I had sold. They did not contact me, just my FFL.

      • All of that has absolutely nothing to do with me. When I get a knock on the door that’s when my involvement starts. Considering the fact that the most I have on my record is traffic tickets I seriously doubt I would be a suspect. I’m not a criminal, I don’t have criminal tendencies, and I can account for my whereabouts in more ways than one. I have no control over what other people do. Which means I can’t be responsible for other people’s actions. Especially when I’m not even indirectly involved.

          • That will be the day myself and others will die a gruesome death because I won’t be imprisoned just because the government has some wild hair whim up their ass. Especially considering up to that point I hadn’t hurt anyone.

        • “That will be the day myself and others will die a gruesome death because I won’t be imprisoned just because the government has some wild hair whim up their ass. Especially considering up to that point I hadn’t hurt anyone.”

          On that day, you and I will be in complete agreement.

    • “First private sales are not FFL holders and contribute nothing like FFL holders do by paying a annual fee for the license.”

      So what?

      “Second there is a form for NICS checks, form 4473. Personally I don’t want the headache of record keeping every time I sell a gun.”

      Originally, NICS was supposed to be an open system. The reason why private parties don’t have access to NICS is because there’s no way to force them to maintain files for 4473s.

      Background checks are nothing. The 4473 is the key to confiscation, so it’s everything.

      • Not sure where you were going with that but I’m not going do a background check should I decide to sell or trade my own property. I’m also not going to hold on to forms that I never asked the government to have to fill out and save for record. Should I do a background check if I were to sell or trade a knife? How about an ax or some other scary property maintenance tool? Baseball bat, if I were to give away a baseball bat should I do a background check on the person I’m giving it to? Background checks on guns is just as asinine as those other non gun items I list but they can all kill. The government doesn’t have a right to tell me what I can do with my property and quite frankly neither do you. It’s mine, I paid for it, I’ll do as a damn well please.

      • 4473 is just a many layered trap to try to catch you, all that is necessary is a SSN. Return a registration # if that SSN clears the check, and the date. You record the # for the serial of the firearm, and no one ever checks unless they are following the chain of ownership due to use in a crime.

    • “What we need is for people to make smarter decisions”

      Reality calling. You are going to have to fundamentally change the nature of mankind.

      “and for the laws that we currently have to be enforced as the should be.”

      No. The supreme law of the land says, “shall not be infringed.”

      The Supreme Court of the United States of America made up doctrine in Marbury v. Madison thereby conferring upon itself Judicial Review (not my opinion, even the US courts’ website states this fact). Wielding this made up, unconstitutional doctrine, the Court decided that its ruling is superior to the plain language of the supreme law of the land. Since the Supreme Court, like all of the federal government, is empowered solely by the Constitution, its authority is null and void when it violates the Constitution. Plain language of the Constitution > contrived doctrine.

      TL;DR… No gun control law is legitimate so you are asking for unconstitutional, invalid law to be enforced. You are supporting tyranny.

      • No. The supreme law of the land says, “shall not be infringed.”

        No gun control law is legitimate so you are asking for unconstitutional, invalid law to be enforced. You are supporting tyranny.

        Actually no I meant the laws already in place for things like assault with a deadly weapon and murder or any other law pertaining to crimes against persons. Gun control laws do not prevent crimes against persons.

        • That might be what you meant to state but it wasn’t what you did state…

          “and for the laws that we currently have to be enforced as the should be.”

          “The laws that we currently have” include unconstitutional laws like gun control.

          Even if you meant otherwise, others reading your statement would have no idea what you meant, as opposed to what you actually stated.

          Since you did not mean to include unconstitutional laws, my hat is off to you.

          • Even if you meant otherwise, others reading your statement would have know idea what you meant, as opposed to what you actually stated.

            Well while I’m sure some think I’m a troll and am really some closet liberal, I’m really not. I really am a gun owner, I really am a husband and father, have my own home, an honorably retired veteran of this country, and so on. In fact not only am I all of those things but I can prove each and every one,on demand even. As I’ve stated elsewhere I have proved the retired veteran part several times. All because some dipshit doesn’t like that I wear an old PT shirt that I bought while I was still in. The stolen valor war fighters can kiss my ass. I don’t need their shit. What I am not and never will be is a Democrat liberal and I absolutely will not be in total agreement with every hairy dicked Tom that comes down the pike. For future reference when I say laws need to be enforced let’s just leave it at the constitutional laws. Vote Republican!

        • “For future reference when I say laws need to be enforced let’s just leave it at the constitutional laws.”

          Or, you could just state what you actually intend the first time around.

          I will try my best to remember that you aren’t including unconstitutional laws but, again, those who are unaware of what you mean will not and may be influenced by your writing.

  12. President Trump,

    Please do not allow ANYTHING these morons send to you pass into law. They only want to disarm the law abiding American citizens and turn them into subservient subjects. Don’t let Bloomingbird, Sorryazz and their Communistic minions infringe on any more of our rights, especially our second amendment rights.

    • Allegedly this was from the White House to Congress. Of course, now they backing away once it was exposed for line of horseshit that it is. I wouldn’t trust anything traveling in either direction.

      But every one wanted Trump because he wasn’t a politician.

      • It came from the white house according to an “anonymous source”… I’d just as soon believe that some staffer whipped it up on an office printer.

  13. The most positive thing that can occur in Washington D.C. is gridlock. At least with gridlock. Politicians can’t screw things up any worse. Regardless of who is in control. The big concern is in the courts. These people for the most part are not elected and do not answer to the citizenry. Judges as of late have taken control of deciding the right or wrong of far to many issues. They are the most dangerous creatures in “The Swamp” and deserve the greatest scrutiny. Beware of the Look Here mentality. The real danger is behind the curtain. Where you aren’t allowed to look. Keep your powder Dry.

  15. Trump needs to be careful of falling into a Democrat trap. George HW Bush said, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” And then he compromised with the Democrats and it came back to bite him come re-election time.

    If Trump compromises with the Democrats, you can be sure they will trot that out as Trump lying to his base during the next general election. He has to avoid that at all costs.

  16. It would appear that President Trump should do nothing to further violate the Constitution,that or risk what could be a easy reelection,the best deal he can make is NO deal with the Leftists of either party.

  17. If only Barr would give as much serious thought to prosecuting the criminals who are still trying to reverse the election! Cut to the chase, Bill. Capital punishment for capital crimes, and leave the rest of us alone!

  18. I am tired of all the talk, factual or not, about what should be done to decrease gun related injuries and or deaths and how to fix the system we currently have. Nothing worthwhile is happening because too many people are yelling and making proposals which do not fix the problem of, sick, or otherwise, bad people getting guns; additionally many of the proposals violate different Articles and Amendments to the Constitution showing that those making the proposal either aren’t serious or oblivious of the Constitution restraints.
    We need someone who can draw together a group of people familiar with current Gun Laws, US Constitution, and the problem (keeping guns away from people who should not have them); these people would devise changes to the current law and propose methods of changing and replacing current law which would deny access to guns by those who shouldn’t have them, establish procedures for temporary removal of personal weapons for those diagnosed with mental problems where they are threat to themselves and others, felons, abusers, etc. Any and all changes would be in direct accordance with the Constitution and not infringe upon anyones rights in any way. The ultimate goal would be a Law written in accordance with the needs of the people and in absolute accordance with the 2nd Amendment.

    • “additionally many of the proposals violate different Articles and Amendments to the Constitution showing that those making the proposal either aren’t serious or oblivious of the Constitution restraints.
      We need someone who can draw together a group of people familiar with current Gun Laws, US Constitution, and the problem (keeping guns away from people who should not have them); these people would devise changes to the current law and propose methods of changing and replacing current law which would deny access to guns by those who shouldn’t have them”

      You are talking out both sides. The plain language of the Constitution says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That does not allow for infringement. Constitutionally, there are no “those who shouldn’t have them” in regards to federal law. Gun control was introduced federally under the commerce clause. It still violated the Second Amendment but was a trick using commerce regulation.

      “The ultimate goal would be a Law written in accordance with the needs of the people and in absolute accordance with the 2nd Amendment.”

      If you actually support the Constitution, or even just the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms, you cannot support ANY gun control. There are no “prohibited persons” when it comes to the RKBA.

    • Imagine the power of someone on the national stage, with the political reach of a President, encouraging Americans to become skilled at arms and to acquire and learn the means to defend themselves.

      That would have more of an effect on mass shootings than any of these garbage proposals.

      Will it ever happen? Not likely. But that’s one thing that should be done here, when people feel the need to “do something.”

  19. Barr is showing his true colors. ANY proposal by Congress pertaining to further gun-control measures should never make it out of the Senate. If something does get to Trump’s desk, he needs to veto it. Senators Cruz and Grassley are correct – fix and then enforce existing laws. The ultimate aim of Democrats and RINOS is gun confiscation.

  20. Which is why you should scoff at any claim that a White House document is ever “leaked”.

    It was put out so the White House could gauge the response and then distance themselves if it doesn’t go over well.

    • Or it was made up wholesale. Anybody who wants to publish anything from an “anonymous source” better be able to prove where the document came from.

  21. I don’t know what the liberals want, there’s always a few bad apples in every bunch. That’s just how life is, sheesh. Millions of guns out there, bound to be one or two people out there that shouldn’t have them.

  22. Why does anyone need an assault style weapon. I am a veteran and a retired police officer. The assault style look cool. The ammo designed for those weapons was designed to killed or severely injure HUMAN BEINGS. These guns are not pretty and not very useful in huntng (if for food or for mounting). I think everybody should know how too handle a gun; my wife and daughter knows. My daughter shoots better than me, but don’t like guns. Like cars any idiot can own and use a gun. People should know what will or can happen. I always trained and told to watch the background and crossfire (military & police). Tactical rifle ammo will penetrate vests, drywall and most modern car bodies and have some good range. Bad guys don’t care about background. As an officer I carried 40 caliber pistol (with reload mags) and AR-15 rifle (with 2 mags). One mag with standard rifle rounds and the other that would not penetrate drywall (AR-15). I like a Winchester 73 style rifle; it beautiful. People who don’t know how to handle usually can expect to be shot, have their gun and shot with it, shoot themselves, hit the wrong target (people). You should expect people would carry to have common sense: but then there are people who drive 70 mph while texting.

    • @Hank. “Why does anyone need an assault style weapon.” & “These guns are not pretty and not very useful in huntng (if for food or for mounting). ”
      I’m pretty sure you don’t have a clue what you are talking about…

      • No MB its you who does not know what the hell you are talking about. The AR15/AK47 was designed to kill lots of people in the shortest possible time. Now what part of this do you not understand.

        Lets face facts Hank is correct. There is no legitimate need for an assault rifle , none. The worlds big game populations were driven to the brink of extinction with single shot and double barrel rifles proving that is all you need for hunting.

        I would say Joe Biden was also correct when he recommended a shotgun for home defense. It was the most popular weapon in the rape of the Philippine Islands by U.S. Mass Murdering Storm Troopers in 1899 and it was a cherished weapon in the mass murder blood bath in Vietnam as well. Its just that we should limit semi-auto shotguns and pump guns to no more than 3 shots maximum.

        Weapons of mass destruction are for Federal Employed Storm Troopers, not civilians , lunatics or members of the Paramilitary White Supremacist Lunatic Fringe who practice and engage in fantasies on weekends on how to overthrow the government. These are the last people on earth you want having weapons of mass destruction.

        • Well I hope you are in the stack at the door when they come to take them from me. I use all but my 9mm handguns for hunting. I use all of my guns for recreational purposes. Stop with the assault rifle and weapons of mass destruction shit. It gets old. None of my rifles assault anything. Assault is an action that by its nature can’t be performed by an inanimate object. The person, that’s right the person holding the inanimate object is what does the assaulting. Can you read minds? Can you know for sure what another person is going to do before they do? Tell me what I’m thinking right now. If it’s anything but you’re an idiot you’re wrong.

        • Nobody needs fully semi automatic multiple bullet murder death machines. Look at me I have my dog food and my meth and my sweat pants and I am as happy as a little girl.

          The Original Vlad Tepes

          • Look at me I have my dog food and my meth and my sweat pants and I am as happy as a little girl.

            Are you secretly a little girl or secretly wish you were a little girl?

        • You have got to stop smoking that demoscum crack they keep giving you and quit drinking that demomaggot Kool aid. Based on your self described multiple encounters with law enforcement, you can’t legally own a firearm and it explains a lot. You don’t want law abiding citizens to be able to have large capacity magazines so you stand a better chance of robbing, raping or assaulting them and not getting shot. As for myself and many of the others, they want every advantage possible to eliminate the threat to their families, property or freedoms.

          You know that the average time it takes for the police to respond to a call is at least 20 minutes. By then you have gotten away with what you have stolen or committed some haenous act. The only things the police will do is write the report, call an ambulance, or call the coroner. That is why WE DO need all the firepower legally available to keep the predators from our doors.

          Your way and the way of the demomaggots is to turn citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families into victims of criminals and subservient subjects of their Communistic party. If they just start enforcing the laws on the books and prosecuting the criminals to the fullest extent, most of our problems would be resolved. Instead, your demoscum leaders look at lowlifes like as victims, not victimizers. They are more interested in controlling the people and taking away their rights rather than dealing effectively with the criminals.

    • @Hank,

      “I am a veteran and a retired police officer.”

      I highly doubt that. Someone who’s spent a lifetime serving and defending this country in TWO capacities that involve swearing oaths to uphold the Constitution would not likely make the argument you did here.

      “Why does anyone need an assault style weapon.”

      First, it’s not the Bill of Needs. It’s the Bill of Rights. And why is it the Left calls the same AR an “assault weapon” if I’m holding it, but a “personal defense weapon” if a government agent is holding it? Did it somehow change genders?

      • I didn’t want to call into question the veteran and police officer claim just because without proof you never know. I am a veteran and I have been asked stupid questions because it was thought I was some stolen valor idiot. My retired military ID shuts up those with doubt pretty damn quick though. Having said all that I agree with you that the majority of veterans and police officers do not share the opinion that people shouldn’t own AR”s of any type or caliber.

        • @No One Special, I agree, I didn’t want to question Hank’s patriotism, service or job experience. His statements are not consistent with that of a 2A supporter or veteran military service member, but they are consistent with lots of younger LEO. Maybe his most recent contact is with younger LEO’s and has been corrupted by osmosis?

      • Wrong MB

        Most Cops I know do not want to have to go up against lunatics armed with weapons of mass destruction. And the courts have upheld anti-gun laws since the founding to the country. Even the ones that banned handguns altogether. Try ad get a pistol in New York City ,the Sullivan law is still in effect despite the Scala ruling which was a fake and and a farce as well. You have no Second Amendment Rights. History has proven it over and over again. None of the assault rifle and capacity bans in the last two years have been overturned by the courts despite the farce known as the Scalia decision. The Founding Father Swap Rats wanted absolute power over the people and wrote 2A in the vaguest of terms so it could be interpreted by the people in power in which ever way they chose and they chose to ban guns at will whenever they wanted to.

        • @Vlad. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, and not open to interpretation. All gun laws are illegal. the NFA, GCA, AWB and every state, county, and city ordnance. Don’t like the Constitution, get it amended. Other than that, the laws are illegal.

        • quote————————–@Vlad. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, and not open to interpretation. All gun laws are illegal. the NFA, GCA, AWB and every state, county, and city ordnance. Don’t like the Constitution, get it amended. Other than that, the laws are illegal.———————-quote

          The history of Court decisions has proved you wrong. Your 2A is a fantasy and again court history proves it beyond all doubt.

        • I know what I am talking about believe me I have met a lot of cops and almost every one of them put the hand cuffs on way too tight. And dont get me started on all the judges I have meet they all sound like my daddy telling me what a useless miserable waste of space I am.

          The Original Vlad Tepes

          • And dont get me started on all the judges I have meet they all sound like my daddy telling me what a useless miserable waste of space I am.

            🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
            I knew it, you do have daddy issues!
            😂😂😂😂😂

    • My AR’s are very useful for hunting. Going to hunt with my 6.5 Grendel and possibly my 6.5 Creedmoor LFAR this year. I may use my 6.5 Creedmoor bolt gun instead. Believe it or not a 5.56 AR is very capable of killing whitetail deer with the right bullet and placement. Quite frankly none of that matter. What matters is hunting isn’t the reason for the 2A and I’m not a criminal. Thatl the only reasons I need to own the guns I own.

    • You sound like a liberal trying to spread inaccurate information while pretending to be someone other than a gun hating plant.

    • FUDDs are us aparently.

      To answer your question, I want an AR 15 BECAUSE it is the weapon platform I have the most experience with. I CAN use it for every hunting situtation I will ever encounter. The most important thing is this though. I have been in the shit with them. I know EXACTLY what to expect of the platorm. I know EXACTLY what I need to do with them to survive. Home defense IS CQB & I want the weapon that has proven to me to be the most effective, in my hands, for the job.

    • “I like a Winchester 73 style rifle”

      Guess what hero…that WAS the assault weapon of the day. The basic design (1860 Henry) was designed for military contract. It was designed to kill men on the battlefield. That it could also be used as a hunting weapon was an afterthought.

      That is one problem with saying “this was designed to kill people.” Damn near everything was,has been or can be traced back to a weapon design that was. Both ammo & weapon originally started as a way to make money & sell to the customer to the deepest pockets, the United States military.

      One thing I really don’t understand in all of this: How the hell does the action being activated by gas or recoil change a single thing??? It barely slows down shot to shot time (pumps & levers can be extreemly fast) & certinally not to the point where anything but faster police presence has any affect. High capacity magazines can be made for any of them (My Remington 760 uses a detachable box magazine). So explain this to me. If the gun does the action my arm makes otherwise how does that change anything?

      • That is exactly why we need magazine capacity limits so they pertain to pumps, lever action rifles, bolt guns, pistols, revolvers etc.

        • “That is exactly why we need magazine capacity limits so they pertain to pumps, lever action rifles, bolt guns, pistols, revolvers etc.”

          And dont fergit capacity limits on nail guns and staple guns and soldering guns and heat guns I just burned my fingers real bad trying to light my meth pipe with my heat gun. Those things are really dangerous especially when you put them on the high heat setting nobody needs high heat capacity heat guns. And the hot glue guns! Those things are way dangerous I burned my nose real bad with mine and it was a ripoff any way because I didnt even get high.

    • What is an “assault style” weapon? Stop giving power to the language bending liberals. And who are you to ask me why I need something. Last time I looked it was called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. You throw out the fact that your were in the military and a policemen, then start babbling about background. Who cares!! It adds nothing to the discussion. I will have what I want and should not have to justify it to no one, especially a Fudd. Before you start telling me I should limit myself, let me ask you this – will you keep your stupid opinion to yourself? How about self limiting your First Amendment rights.

    • I think Vlad just changed his name again guys. He started a crisco kid, then vlad, now hank. Probably in an attempt to seem more American or conservative.

    • I’d love to see this magical 5.56×45 ammo that doesn’t penetrate drywall. Sounds like you had a magazine of blanks.

    • Hmph, I’m also a vet, retired 0311.

      Last time I checked, the second amendment is listed under the bill of rights, not the bill of needs, not the bill of wants. Its mans attempt at articulating an extension of the unalienable right to life, that is the right of self-preservation; the keeping and bearing of arms. Such a right is endowed to men by their creator and is self-evident in nature.

      I will decide for myself what I useful for hunting, to defend me and mine. I will also decide what is best for my kit as a member of the unregulated militia sometimes referred to as the first civilian division.

      A refresher on the first part of the oath of enlistment, as well as for officers.

      “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; . . .”

      On a side note, the constitution is the one document we never got any education on in the USMC, how interesting.

    • Huh?! What version of the Constitution are you reading? The only official version has the phrase “shall not be infringed,” in only one place as far as I can recall, and that is in the 2nd Amendment and no where else. My version does not anywhere make any mention of cars nor of any vehicular transportation. Bottom line is that one does not have any Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep or drive cars, that is a privilege at best, but one does have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed!

  23. The most important thing we can do is remove the serial number information off of Form 4473. That one minor change will destroy the Democrats’ hopes of a national gun registry, and won’t make any difference whatsoever in crime statistics.

  24. At this point Washington is so messed up on both sides I vote based on the 2nd Amendment alone. If Trump screws us over again as he has with that bumpstock bullshit then I really don’t care who wins in 2020 as we are in big trouble already. This war on good people is unexplainable to me. Why can’t they just leave us alone and go after the real threats in this country? I or my weapons have never threatened anyone in 52 years. I received my first gun when I was 8 years old. We have a problem with evil humans not the tools they use.

    • “This war on good people is unexplainable to me.”

      Watch this whole video and it will no longer be unexplained. If you don’t want to watch the entire video, it can be explained as… Governments always moves towards tyranny. Sometimes it gets helped along. However, the natural tendency of government is tyranny. Left unchecked, government will become tyrannical. Individuals left unchecked in power will become tyrants.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avbIhMi9OWg

    • You are correct. Blaming the tool will never solve the problem of evil in some peoples hearts. I am also a 2nd Amendment voter. I’ll drop my support for a candidate faster than that candidate can sign a bill.

  25. Quote: “Maybe that’s because the proposals being floated are so obviously based on false premises and some could actually be unconstitutional.” Correction: ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional. Period. Full stop. Licenses, background checks, special taxes, how many at a time, how big the magazine can be., etc etc etc. Each and every one is unconstitutional. Don’t take my word for it, here the 2nd amendment in full: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” No where is there a “but”, “maybe” or “unless”. By the way, all those people claiming that the 2nd amendment does not protect “assault rifles” or “weapons of war” are lying to you. At the time the 2nd amendment was written and ratified the only weapons Americans had were weapons of war. Everything from their tomahawks to their flintlocks, from their cannons to their machine guns because at the time BB guns and nerf guns did not exist.

    • technically, most of the public had better than military guns at that time… theirs were rifled barrels, and military rifles at that time were mostly smoothbore.
      the militia at this time was and technically can still be interpreted as the people. what would stop an invading force? a well armed populace. Lastly a government in fear of its people will not likely misstep in taking actions AGAINST the people.
      a gun was and is , regardless of configuration , still the best protection of self, property, family and country. what these pathetic liberal sycophants don’t see to get is that the constitution doesn’t give us these rights. just being human does. what the constitution says is that they cant MESS or LIMIT those rights. so go ahead Vlad, you stupid sack of crap keep arguing , you are still a damned fool and your BELIEFS cannot take away my RIGHTS .

  27. Quote——————————–America’s gun owners are simply heartbroken to hear that the rush to enact more restrictions and hurdles to lawful firearms purchases isn’t going well. Maybe that’s because the proposals being floated are so obviously based on false premises and some could actually be unconstitutional (see Matt Larosiere’s excellent breakdown of the half-baked ideas below).—————————-quote

    quote————————–Bottom line: none of this would impact “gun violence” or mass shootings in the slightest. If enacted, the proposals would, instead, make civilian purchases and ownership of firearms more expensive and onerous. And anything that moves us closer to registration is both illegal and dangerous.—————–quote

    Wrong.

    The proposals of Red Flag Laws, Vetting of Second hand gun purchases and safe storage laws are not based on false premises. All Civilized Nations have them and to become a Civilized Nation the U.S. needs to have all 3 of the above laws. And yes the availability of guns to criminals and nut cases would be cut drastically with the 3 above laws.

    Registration is not illegal and not dangerous at all. A Nation does not need registration to ban guns. Remember the Second Amendment was deliberately written in the vaguest of all possible terms so that the Founding Father Power Mad Swamp Rats could keep all their power and ban guns if they needed too or simply wanted too. The corrupt courts have been sanctioning gun ban laws since the founding of the country, proving the rights under the Second Amendment have always been a farce and a joke with the corrupt courts that see gun ownership as a threat to their absolute power over the people.

    • Then you can move your commie ass to one of those “civilized nations”. Here’s an idea… if you don’t like American freedoms you can get the fuck out.

      • Look Power Brain, go back and read what I posted. I stated that court anti gun ban history proved that 2A is a joke and always has been.

        • Get out of the country? Most days I cant even get out of the basement let alone out of the house and when I do nine times out of ten I get arrested. Plus social security disability rejected my claim for carpel tunnel from all those times the cops put the hand cuffs on too tight. So how am I supposed to get out of the country?

          The Original Vlad Tepes

    • @Vlad “Registration is not illegal and not dangerous at all.” Please try telling that to German Jews, or Poles after WWII, or Russians, Ukrainians or Chinese academicians . Please speak to someone with numbers tattooed on their arms before making such a statement. Hitler got many of his ideas from observing the Democrat party in America in the 20’s and 30’s. The government we have is the exact government the framers were concerned about.

      • To MB

        You flunked History . Hitler did institute registration but never took the guns from the German people at all. My Father fought with Patton’s 3rd Army and confiscated tons of privately owned German firearms including fancy engraved shotguns (that the corrupt officers confiscated and sent home) as well as pistols, and rifles.

        • @Vlad, you are correct. they didn’t take the guns out of the people’s homes, they took the people known to have guns out of their homes and put them in rail cars. Please get your history correct. Your dad’s service has nothing to do with you.

        • to MB

          quote————-@Vlad, you are correct. they didn’t take the guns out of the people’s homes, they took the people known to have guns out of their homes and put them in rail cars. Please get your history correct. Your dad’s service has nothing to do with you.———-quote

          Well at least you admit you were wrong about History and Hitler and I might add those people that did have guns in Germany and who were arrested and liquidated did not save themselves because they had guns. Their guns were useless against an army of well trained and heavily armed Storm Troopers. Its exactly what I have been saying about the Paramilitary Lunatic Fringe in the U.S. They would not stand a chance against Robotic U.S. Jack Booted Storm Troopers. They have not had the opportunity to kill large numbers of civilians since Vietnam and I am sure they are itchy to relive past glories.

          And I might add my Father fought the Nazi’s in Germany so that people like you could not repeat what happened in Germany.

        • @Vlad. I love it when you make my point. Those people you say were not saved even though they had guns, all they had .32ACP 6 shot pistols, or 7.63mm Mauser if they were lucky, and single and double barrel shotguns. That is why semi-auto rifles are a great equalizer, and as citizens we should have any arms the military does. Machine guns and even tanks are legal here in Texas…And any cop who thinks citizens don’t need AR’s/AK’s is not true to the oath he or she took. And personal insults do not enhance your position. Keep calm and discuss….or logoff.

        • “My Father fought with Patton’s 3rd Army and confiscated tons of privately owned German firearms including fancy engraved shotguns”

          And when he got back to the US he got a Federal Firearms Dealer license and opened up a gun shop and he is still selling them today it takes a long time to sell tons of privately owned German firearms.

        • No you idiot, he only took them from the Jews and those that opposed him. That didn’t turn out too well for about six million of them did it? Your idols WILL revert to the same tactics sometime in the future if they keep getting another “small change”.

        • You know the Nazis only took guns away from the people they deemed deplorable, like Jews, Gypsies, and gays (which is what upset one of your two daddies). They didn’t disarm their own supporters. Those people your gay daddy was confiscating guns from Nazis, and Nazi supporters. Real jackboot wearing actual Nazis, not 2019 I won an argument with Vlad Nazis.

          We can discuss it more over dinner. Come over to my place tonight for some stake, Vlad.

    • Wrong dipshit. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner.
      This country was founded because a tyrant tried to take the guns away from the people. It wasn’t tolerated in the 1700’s and it sure as hell isn’t going to happen today. We do not trust those in power. Never have, never will.

      • quote—————————This country was founded because a tyrant tried to take the guns away from the people. It wasn’t tolerated in the 1700’s and it sure as hell isn’t going to happen today. We do not trust those in power. Never have, never will.——————quote

        Wrong. This country was founded by filthy rich corrupt businessmen who were to cheap to pay taxes to Britain. They ended up biting off the hand that was feeding them and set back America’s industrial progress for decades. Historians agree that both Britain and the U.S. were prospering because of free trade. Sound familiar? Free trade is not a 20th century phenomenon. Trying to say the revolution came about because of an isolated incident of a gun lock up is not only laughable but just another Right Wing propaganda fantasy. The real causes of the revolution had to do with Washington’s lust for power, the greed merchants lust for money, and a brilliant propagandist Thomas Paine who was not even an American Citizen, rather he was a anarchist. Yes without Paine who was a friend of the incompetent Washington the revolution would never have gotten off the ground and Washington repaid Paine by abandoning him in his most desperate hour of need while he sat in a prison in France. Not to mention Washington also stabbing Benedict Arnold in the back when he refused to get the money to reimburse him that he spent on the Revolution out of his own personal fortune. Too bad Arnold did not hire a hit man to pay Washington back with a bullet in the head.

        Yes the true story of the American Revolution has been hidden and sanitized for the proletariat to produce mindless robotic cannon fodder for America’s wars of rape, conquest and pillage and the true story of the Revolution only known to those who have studied the revolution in its uncensored sordid and scandalous past.

        • I know all about US histroy you would not believe how much I know about US history I went to almost half of the lectures for that one US history class I took before I dropped out of college.

          You people are so ignorant you probably dont even know that George Washington was paid off by the NRA and Putin had so much dirt on Hamilton that he had to do what ever the Russians said. Plus when Benedict Arnold sued the Continental Congress in small claims court to get his money back the FBI covered up all the evidence and destroyed his receipts and Brett Kavanaugh ruled against Benedict Arnold in the most corrupt Supreme Court decision ever in the 18th century.

    • Vlad you’re too busy Sucking Cock & Drinking Cum you “Civilized” Commie Faggot. You would Enjoy a Double Barrel Shotgun up your Ass with the right amount of Lube you Dickless Cunt. Put on your High Heels & go Earn some money on the Street corner you Transfabulous Queer. You would have been a Good Little NAZI Homo just like your Girlfriend Homo Hitler. Bitch.

  28. Notice how it is always propose something… even tightening NICS. It is a ratchet effect. There is no significant rolling back to government respecting a constitutionally protected right. Even some POTG have their heads up their collective asses when it comes to exercising the actual right. Some don’t want felons owning guns. Some don’t want open carry. So on and so forth.

    In the long term, tyranny will win unless people wishing to remain free fight with everything they have in the short term. This is the relationship between Man and government. Government keeps pushing back until Man refuses to budge. Then, if Man is wise, he continues to push back until he has subdued government for generations.

    Some of us have been around for a good while. We know that this will only get worse in the long term. Demoralization has been successful. Indoctrination is systemic now. This requires a heavy hand, not white gloves. In my lifetime I’ve seen many turns of this ratchet. In regards to overall liberty, the direction is one-way unless acted upon deliberately by a determined outside force.

  29. Meh. Idea sheets of unknown origin as conversation starters are not even proposed legislation.

    I love how people think we have to take everything a political animal says at face value with no thought as to any other unstated objectives they might have.

    Making an offer to an extremist to get them to publicly state their insane and extreme ideas in a counterproposal is a tactic that goes back thousands of years. It’s the other side of the “proposal they cannot accept” strategy.

  30. The U.S. Constitution is unmistakeably clear on firearms. President Trump, in his oath of office, undertook to “support, uphold and defend the constitution”. He and myriad other elected representatives and senators should stick to the oath of office that THEY ALL TOOK, which the fairy tale of Gun Control violates the hell out of.

  33. Wait, the AP said this:

    Trump says he doesn’t want “bad people” to have weapons, but won’t allow any plan to move forward that takes guns away from law-abiding people.

    Trump says Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s call last week to confiscate AR-15-style rifles has made it more difficult for Republicans to make an agreement. Trump says: “A lot of people think this is just a way of taking away guns.” He adds he won’t let that happen.

    I hate to get hopeful. Nor do I think The Orange Crush is playing 17th-dimensional chess, nor encumbered by deep policy convictions. BUT this is drifting toward making them an offer they can’t accept. Much like immigration, there’s positions he ran on, and can’t abandon without consequences. Much like immigration, a feral, literal, even simpleton’s one-syllable-word take cuts to parts of the issue that the D-party can’t accept.

    “Show me something that’ll do some good, n won’t take law-abiding people’s guns, and I’m all over it.”

    The D-party can’t do stuff that’ll do some good, has to do stuff that won’t, and can’t get enough backing unless their proposals result ultimatley in universal confiscation. The Orange Crush can make them offers all day that look moderate and reasonable, and they can’t accept.

  34. Cruz seems to be positioning himself for a 2024 presidential run. He is really courting gun owners lately. I don’t believe he actually is pro gun. But he sure is making pro gun mouth noises.

  35. Before agreeing to any more gun laws, I’d like to see Libs agree to Photo Voter ID, Term Limits and back ground checks on politicians and IRS audits. A corrupt politician is more dangerous than a firearm. If the Libs agree to the above, I may agree to some enhanced gun laws, but will never give them up. Red Flag laws are going to create a lot of fireworks, it is a gun grab program pure and simple. What keeps a politician from saying you are a threat to the community and the boys in blue show up for your firearms. More legal thought should be applied to the gun problem before news laws are created. Even all the laws we currently have do not work. Cancel them all and start new with something a lot better than what we have.

Comments are closed.