# Biden Gun Control vote



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

Deleted.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Speaking of ole CCC.....


----------



## kingfish501 (Oct 7, 2007)

BOHICA!!!!


----------



## photofishin (Jun 26, 2009)

I can tell you that if any communist loving Democrat shows up and looks to take guns in Texas they'd better pack a lunch!


----------



## catfever24 (Dec 26, 2011)

Same goes for Florida


----------



## jack2 (Mar 19, 2010)

alabama too.
jack


----------



## JoeyWelch (Sep 25, 2009)

Before y’all start shooting the people who come for your guns, you need to start shooting the lefty’s that voted for this fool. They’re the one to blame.


----------



## daylate (Feb 22, 2012)

They will not come for your guns. Australia has shown them the way. They outlaw what you have and unless you sell them to the govt, you become a felon subject to arrest at any time. If you decide to hide your guns, you can do that, but you can never let them see the light of day. They are fine with that outcome.


----------



## Bodupp (Oct 3, 2007)

JoeyWelch said:


> Before y’all start shooting the people who come for your guns, you need to start shooting the lefty’s that voted for this fool. They’re the one to blame.


Joey, very few people voted for Biden. He was "elected" well before the democratic primary. Why would members (note: plural) of the fake media ask Trump six or eight months before the election if he would accept the outcome of the election if they didn't know something well ahead of time? Answer that one question and I'll take off my tin hat.


----------



## photofishin (Jun 26, 2009)

daylate said:


> They will not come for your guns. Australia has shown them the way. They outlaw what you have and unless you sell them to the govt, you become a felon subject to arrest at any time. If you decide to hide your guns, you can do that, but you can never let them see the light of day. They are fine with that outcome.


fortunately, unlike Australia, our rights are guaranteed by God according to our US Constitution. Last I checked, "shall not be infringed" means EXACTLY what it says.


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

MrFish said:


> Speaking of ole CCC.....


???
This is real. 
Not the Mass floating around again stuff.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Boardfeet said:


> ???
> This is real.
> Not the Mass floating around again stuff.


This is speculation.


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

Yes sir you are absolutely right. I was mistaken. Pasted this from another forum before fact checking. Sorry for the mistake. 
It is pure speculation


----------



## toma (Oct 10, 2007)

Boardfeet said:


> ???
> This is real.
> Not the Mass floating around again stuff.


What is CCC?


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

A member that posted some crazy shi!!


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

May be this link is a little more appropriate 








Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President


Joe Biden's plan to end gun violence will tackle America's gun violence head on, and treat it as the public health epidemic it is.




joebiden.com


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Boardfeet said:


> May be this link is a little more appropriate
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know what he wants to do. I'm just not gonna panic about it too much. The NRA has a history of yelling that the sky is falling to get more money.


----------



## daylate (Feb 22, 2012)

photofishin said:


> fortunately, unlike Australia, our rights are guaranteed by God according to our US Constitution. Last I checked, "shall not be infringed" means EXACTLY what it says.


Our rights have already been infringed quite a bit. What makes anyone believe they will let the Constitution stand in the way?


----------



## Splittine (Nov 24, 2007)

photofishin said:


> fortunately, unlike Australia, our rights are guaranteed by God according to our US Constitution. Last I checked, "shall not be infringed" means EXACTLY what it says.


Are you saying our 2nd Amendment rights haven’t been violated in any way? Who was the last President that didn’t infringed on the 2nd?


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

H.R.8 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019


Summary of H.R.8 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019



www.congress.gov


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

MrFish said:


> I know what he wants to do. I'm just not gonna panic about it too much. The NRA has a history of yelling that the sky is falling to get more money.


Yes sir I'm sure YOU know, but there are people out there that may not know and I for one believe it is imperative this information is widely spread to as many sportsmen and women as possible. Believe it or not your gun rights are at risk.
Take a look at HR 8 and HR 1446.
Maybe they do not stand a chance in hell of passing, maybe Sleepy Joe does not have a chance in Hell of being elected.
I'm not looking for any confrontation, just tryin g to be informative to those maybe not in the know.


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

https://mikethompson.house.gov/sites/mikethompson.house.gov/files/HR%208%20Section%20by%20Section%20%28final%29.pdf



This will make private gun sales illegal without a background check, and a FFL transfer.


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

Boardfeet said:


> https://mikethompson.house.gov/sites/mikethompson.house.gov/files/HR%208%20Section%20by%20Section%20%28final%29.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> This will make private gun sales illegal without a background check, and a FFL transfer.


And this is just the first inch for this administration. It's peoples blase' and "it'll never happen" attitudes that leads to the emboldment of the dims to go for the mile.








Democrat Admits Current Gun Control Push is Just 'First Step'


House Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) introduced gun control legislation this week and made clear that the current push is just the "first step."




www.breitbart.com


----------



## Ocean Master (May 20, 2008)

The last gun law was in 1994. It was the assault weapon ban if if I remember correctly.

I‘m not going to say what guns I have but there are some members that know

I read the article above and all it said was longer background checks.

I am referring to this post.....









Democrat Admits Current Gun Control Push is Just 'First Step'


House Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) introduced gun control legislation this week and made clear that the current push is just the "first step."




www.breitbart.com


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

Ocean Master said:


> The last gun law was in 1994. It was the assault weapon ban if if I remember correctly.
> 
> I‘m not going to say what guns I have but there are some members that know
> 
> I read the article above and all it said was longer background checks.


SEC 3. FIREARMS TRANSFERS
• (a) To make it illegal for any person who is not a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer
or dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed without a background check. Individuals seeking to transfer a firearm under this section would be required to visit a licensed firearms dealer to run the necessary background check before the transfer is finalized.
• (1)(B) Upon taking possession of a firearm, the licensed firearms dealer would perform the background check as though the gun were part of the dealer’s own inventory.
• (1)(C) If for some reason a transfer under this section cannot be completed for any reason, the return of the firearm would not constitute a transfer and the dealer would be permitted to return the firearm to the seller without having to conduct a background




This isn’t just longer background checks.
It means the way YOU like to buy guns from individuals will no longer be possible without going through an FFL. A Background check and registering the firearm.


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

toma said:


> What is CCC?


Cant Catch Crap?


----------



## Play'N Hooky Too (Sep 29, 2007)

And there you have it, if you are not the registered owner of the gun, how can a FFL dealer transfer the gun from you to someone else, even if that person passes the background check? If the sale doesn't go through, can the dealer give the gun back to you if it is not registered in your name?


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

Play'N Hooky Too said:


> And there you have it, if you are not the registered owner of the gun, how can a FFL dealer transfer the gun from you to someone else, even if that person passes the background check? If the sale doesn't go through, can the dealer give the gun back to you if it is not registered in your name?


A very good point.
One of Biden’s GC plans is to require gun registration. 


Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

If you read the proposed bill, it says there will be NO national registration.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)




----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

This will make private gun sales illegal without a background check, and a FFL transfer.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Boardfeet said:


> This will make private gun sales illegal without a background check, and a FFL transfer.


I read that. Just correcting some of the comments talking about registration.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Is this a hill I'm willing to die on? Nope. I can pass a background check and have a couple ffl buddies. Registration is a huge issue with me, but background checks is gonna happen at some point. The Republicans are gonna cave on this at some point. It has bad optics. Saying they don't want to confirm that a person can own a gun before selling.


----------



## Ocean Master (May 20, 2008)

I guess its time to buy and sell firearms right here. IF any of these laws ever come to pass.


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

This is just the beginning. Dems are in control of the legislative branch and the executive branch. They are going to put a thumb on guns. Whether it is directly or indirectly. ie controlling ammunition, shipping, parts, or whatever they can do.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Boardfeet said:


> This is just the beginning. Dems are in control of the legislative branch and the executive branch. They are going to put a thumb on guns. Whether it is directly or indirectly. ie controlling ammunition, shipping, parts, or whatever they can do.


They held the majority during Obama's first two years also.


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

MrFish said:


> They held the majority during Obama's first two years also.


It’s a different world now. 
You obviously don’t believe anything will happen. It’s that attitude that will allow the dems to pass more and more gun legislation. 
Oh and I in no way should be compared to CCC


----------



## TheBeeDeeGee (Oct 3, 2017)

MrFish said:


> They held the majority during Obama's first two years also.


Yep, exactly. This will drum up weapons and ammo sales like it always does during a dem. presidency. NRA will get more donations etc. Republicans will run on it in the mid terms and win some seats....rinse and repeat

Give me a back ground check to privately buy a firearm...who cares. Yeah it makes it a bit more of a pain in the ass, but really not a big deal. If it keeps some schizophrenic from getting a gun then it worked.


----------



## daylate (Feb 22, 2012)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> Yep, exactly. This will drum up weapons and ammo sales like it always does during a dem. presidency. NRA will get more donations etc. Republicans will run on it in the mid terms and win some seats....rinse and repeat
> 
> Give me a back ground check to privately buy a firearm...who cares. Yeah it makes it a bit more of a pain in the ass, but really not a big deal. If it keeps some schizophrenic from getting a gun then it worked.


Right, and watch how fast FFL transfer charges go through the roof.


----------



## kingfish501 (Oct 7, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> Yep, exactly. This will drum up weapons and ammo sales like it always does during a dem. presidency. NRA will get more donations etc. Republicans will run on it in the mid terms and win some seats....rinse and repeat
> 
> Give me a back ground check to privately buy a firearm...who cares. Yeah it makes it a bit more of a pain in the ass, but really not a big deal. If it keeps some schizophrenic from getting a gun then it worked.


So, have you gotten rid of your " dumb" guns and replaced your home defence handguns with biometric guns yet, in case some schizophrenic breaks in and steals your guns?


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Boardfeet said:


> It’s a different world now.
> You obviously don’t believe anything will happen. It’s that attitude that will allow the dems to pass more and more gun legislation.
> Oh and I in no way should be compared to CCC


Never compared you to CCC.

I know it can happen. I was around for the Assault Weapon ban and probably have some of those ten round AR mags somewhere in my safe. Have plenty of "High Capacity" ones marked LE/Govt Use Only.

What's the problem with my attitude? I am only stating facts. I'm just not going to get all in a panic. I contact my Congressmen and Senators. What are you doing to stop it? Don't say the NRA, they have lost a ton of influence. 

Stamped weapons weren't affected by the last ban and everything I've seen, this would be the same with anything they try to push through. Is it ideal? No, but my AR's are all SBR's.


----------



## TheBeeDeeGee (Oct 3, 2017)

kingfish501 said:


> So, have you gotten rid of your " dumb" guns and replaced your home defence handguns with biometric guns yet, in case some schizophrenic breaks in and steals your guns?


I just don't understand this logic. So we should just do nothing because doing something still wouldn't prevent 100% of illegal gun use? Should we have no traffic laws because people still speed and drunk drive anyway?


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

You stay within the constitution of the United States of America as the framers intended it.


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

I have sent letters to Congressmen and Senators as well. I do not support the NRA as they spend too much money on executive salaries and perks. Been a long time since I was a member. I am active in my community. Serve on the BOD of two community organizations. Support local businesses and charities. Assist with a Scout troop. An advocate of the Second amendment. Especially the part that says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Which is exactly what seems to be happening.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

The NFA is an infringement. I know what the 2A means. They've been infringing for decades. What's gonna stop them? Voting every one of them out. Republicans and Democrats, but when it comes down to it nobody does.


----------



## TheBeeDeeGee (Oct 3, 2017)

If we truly did not "infringe" at all don't you think we'd have some issues? By that thinking citizens should have access to any arms they want. Should we allow use of completely unregulated fully automatic firearms? Should we be able to buy a rocket launcher? My point is we can't realistically implement the 2A as it was written originally in today's world, most other gun owners will never agree with that I know. Back when it was written guys had muskets, I guess you could buy a cannon if you could afford one, but that still ain't the same as what we have now.


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> If we truly did not "infringe" at all don't you think we'd have some issues? By that thinking citizens should have access to any arms they want. Should we allow use of completely unregulated fully automatic firearms? Should we be able to buy a rocket launcher? My point is we can't realistically implement the 2A as it was written originally in today's world, most other gun owners will never agree with that I know. Back when it was written guys had muskets, I guess you could buy a cannon if you could afford one, but that still ain't the same as what we have now.


If you want use this logic, the COTUS should be amended and ratified by 2/3's of the states not a vote in congress. Sometimes I wish people would understand (or at least read) what the constitution does, how it can be amended and when to leave it the fuck alone.


----------



## TheBeeDeeGee (Oct 3, 2017)

H2OMARK said:


> If you want use this logic, the COTUS should be amended and ratified by 2/3's of the states not a vote in congress. Sometimes I wish people would understand (or at least read) what the constitution does, how it can be amended and when to leave it the fuck alone.


I'm confused, that is how an amendment happens (2/3s vote then states ratify). Are you agreeing we shouldn't just have free reign with the 2A or are you saying it should be taken at face value to mean " citizens can have whatever arms they want"


----------



## daylate (Feb 22, 2012)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> If we truly did not "infringe" at all don't you think we'd have some issues? By that thinking citizens should have access to any arms they want. Should we allow use of completely unregulated fully automatic firearms? Should we be able to buy a rocket launcher? My point is we can't realistically implement the 2A as it was written originally in today's world, most other gun owners will never agree with that I know. Back when it was written guys had muskets, I guess you could buy a cannon if you could afford one, but that still ain't the same as what we have now.


By that logic shouldn't we outlaw vehicles capable of speeds high enough to cause injuries in a crash? They had horses and wagons in the founder's days. How many people are killed on the highways vs killed by guns?


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

daylate said:


> By that logic shouldn't we outlaw vehicles capable of speeds high enough to cause injuries in a crash? They had horses and wagons in the founder's days. How many people are killed on the highways vs killed by guns?


That's easier to do. Vehicles aren't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## TheBeeDeeGee (Oct 3, 2017)

daylate said:


> By that logic shouldn't we outlaw vehicles capable of speeds high enough to cause injuries in a crash? They had horses and wagons in the founder's days. How many people are killed on the highways vs killed by guns?


Some would argue vehicles are a lot more heavily regulated than guns.

I've had this conversation so many times, it always goes to the same arguments. Agree to disagree. The US will always have guns, I ain't worried about it. Ultimately a back ground check for private sales should not be the end of the world


----------



## kingfish501 (Oct 7, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> I just don't understand this logic. So we should just do nothing because doing something still wouldn't prevent 100% of illegal gun use? Should we have no traffic laws because people still speed and drunk drive anyway?


Guess you have zero clues about what Biden wants. Once the gun is imprinted to it, only you can fire it. Your wife cannot use it in an emergency. You can't sell it because it is imprinted to you. 35% of the time the gun won't even work for the person it is imprinted to Joe Biden wants us to have these...but not the Secret Service guarding him.


----------



## PensacolaEd (Oct 3, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> Some would argue vehicles are a lot more heavily regulated than guns.
> 
> I've had this conversation so many times, it always goes to the same arguments. Agree to disagree. The US will always have guns, I ain't worried about it. Ultimately a back ground check for private sales should not be the end of the world


Sorry but you just don't get it. It's not a "background check for Private SALES, it's a background check for private TRANSFERS - ALL TRANSFERS. The Bill will require that all transfers - even temporary ones, must undergo a Background check. While that might be OK with you, there are a number of problems you are not even considering:

1) There is no regulation on what the Charge can/will be for the Background Check OR the transfer. What's to prevent the Government from charging $50....or $150....or $250....or $1,000? While these amounts may not present an obstacle for you, they certainly do to the inner city, low-income folks that are forced to live in areas with higher crime. The very people that NEED a gun for self defense the most are hurt the most by these laws.

2) Who is going to do the Background check? The FBI does not have funding or staff to perform the additional MILLIONS of background checks. This is why the UBC Laws in CO and NV are still unenforced - the FBI told the States they don't have staff or funding to do all these extra background checks.

3) What do you suggest the people that live in a remote area, far from the nearest FFL holder do? Drive 2 hours each way every time with a neighbor they want to let borrow a shotgun, then both drive two hours each way when the neighbor returns it?

4 ) The entire premise of these Gun Control laws ISN'T to reduce gun violence - less than 10% of criminals interviewed while in prison got their gun through legal means - do you think a violent criminal who has already decided it's OK to rob, rape or shoot somebody will change his mind if the law says he has to get a background check? Until they come up with laws that will make a meaningful difference in reducing gun violence (UBC's WON'T!) they can stick all these laws that burden only the law abiding up their Democrat-holes! Calling gun violence an "epidemic" is dishonest and disingenuous - the Gun Control folks consistently (and quietly) include gun suicides in gun death and gun violence numbers to inflate the numbers. Saying, "98 people a day are killed by firearms" sounds a heck of a lot worse than saying, "38 people a day are killed by firearms". The second number reflects the 14,000 Americans killed each year by Firearms (and includes Justifiable Homicides and Accidental Shootings), while the first also includes the 30,000 or so Americans that take their own life with a firearm. (Taking firearms away will NOT stop someone from committing suicide - See Japan's Suicide Rate!)

5) Gun Violence and Gun Homicide Rates are NOT "an epidemic" - According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, in the last 30 years, while private firearm ownership and lawful concealed carry have SKYROCKETED, gun violence and gun homicide rates have plummeted and currently sit at historic LOW levels!. Kind of shoots a hole in the "more guns = more crime" BS we always hear, doesn't it?

6) As for the UBC laws not being an "inconvenience", think again - here's a scenario for you to contemplate: Two lifelong friend are out quail hunting and come to a fence. Hunter A unloads his shotgun, hands it to Hunter B and climbs over the fence. Hunter B then hands both unloaded shotguns to Hunter A, climbs over and they continue hunting. Under the UBC Laws proposed and/or passed in many States, BOTH Hunters have just committed an unlawful Transfer - and are not guilty of committing a Felony that will bar them from legally owning a firearm for the rest of their life.

Are you starting ti understand the end-game now?

7) The UBC laws are UNENFORCEABLE unless their is a National Gun registry. How can the Government prove that you purchased a firearm without a Background check unless these is a physical record of the gun belonging to someone else? This is why the UBC Laws in several States either didn't pass, or were passed and deemed unenforceable.

Ed


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Read the bill. Hardly anything you said is true.

1. Temporary loans are permitted without a background check.

2. The government has never set any fee for a 4473, that is up to each ffl. If there is gouging, then it is that ffl.

3. See previous answer.

4. I have no issue with this statement.

5. Same for this one. 

6. Not true.

7. The law specifically states there will not be a national registry.


----------



## Splittine (Nov 24, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> Some would argue vehicles are a lot more heavily regulated than guns.
> 
> I've had this conversation so many times, it always goes to the same arguments. Agree to disagree. The US will always have guns, I ain't worried about it. Ultimately a back ground check for private sales should not be the end of the world



LOL


----------



## PensacolaEd (Oct 3, 2007)

MrFish said:


> Read the bill. Hardly anything you said is true.
> 
> 1. Temporary loans are permitted without a background check.
> 
> ...


Nu.ber 2 is not about the FFL transfer fee. It's about who actually performs the background check. 


Read this.









Universal Background Checks


Universal Background Checks-Ballot Question 1



www.nevadacarry.org





As for Temporary Transfers, there are "limited " exceptions" for Temporary transfers between closely related family members. So who gets to decide what that means? You may be OK with the Federal Government determining who I can give my guns to....I am not.

As for #7, if there is no national registry, why don't YOU explain how the law will be enforced?

You're on the wrong side of this equation.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

PensacolaEd said:


> Nu.ber 2 is not about the FFL transfer fee. It's about who actually performs the background check.
> 
> 
> Read this.
> ...


I should've copied your post in mine, since you felt the need to go back and edit it.


----------



## daylate (Feb 22, 2012)

MrFish said:


> Read the bill. Hardly anything you said is true.
> 2. The government has never set any fee for a 4473, that is up to each ffl. If there is gouging, then it is that ffl.


Absurdly false statement. It is not up to any FFL what to to charge for a NICS check. That fee is set by each state according to sate law. Each FFL decides what they want to charge for a transfer, meaning their fee to run the NICS check. The buyer has to pay BOTH the NICS and FFL transfer fees.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

What's absurd is bitching on here and thinking you're gonna change something. Just like most did with red snapper. Way to be over dramatic there, Susan.


----------



## daylate (Feb 22, 2012)

Everything PensacolaEd said in his post is true. Just because some may not agree with the opinion he expressed does not mean he posted anything that isn't true.


----------



## PensacolaEd (Oct 3, 2007)

For some people it's not about facts or truth...it's about FEELINGS.. 

Thanks for the kind words.


----------



## PensacolaEd (Oct 3, 2007)

MrFish said:


> I should've copied your post in mine, since you felt the need to go back and edit it.


The only thing I edited was the signature was between #6 and #7. You see, when you post FACTS you don't have to edit them. You should try it some time.


----------



## PensacolaEd (Oct 3, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> I just don't understand this logic. So we should just do nothing because doing something still wouldn't prevent 100% of illegal gun use? Should we have no traffic laws because people still speed and drunk drive anyway?


The thing is, this legislation will have exactly zero effect on reducing illegal gun use, except for making lawful actions illegal. Do you actually BELIEVE that a criminal that has already decided that it's ok to rob, rape or murder is going to have a change of heart because he doesn't want to undergo a background check he knows he will fail.

Want to do something that actually works in reducing firearm violence? Lock gun offenders up and KEEP them locked up. No Bonding out, no plea bargains, no early release and no parole. And institute harsh MANDATORY sentences for gun crimes: use a gun during the commission of a crime 15 years...period. Display or brandish it? 25 years! Fire it, even if you don't hit anyone, LIFE OR THE DEATH PENALTY! Watch how fast violent crime drops when there's no repeat offenders!!

Of course, Dimmocrats would never go for it, since most of their voter base would disappear. Look up "Proect Exile" t I see how effective this type of law can be.


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

What happened to 10/20/Life?

What Ed is saying is the old adage:
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.


----------



## PensacolaEd (Oct 3, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> If we truly did not "infringe" at all don't you think we'd have some issues? By that thinking citizens should have access to any arms they want. Should we allow use of completely unregulated fully automatic firearms? Should we be able to buy a rocket launcher? My point is we can't realistically implement the 2A as it was written originally in today's world, most other gun owners will never agree with that I know. Back when it was written guys had muskets, I guess you could buy a cannon if you could afford one, but that still ain't the same as what we have now.


And back when toe Bill of Rights was written, communications consisted of simple newspapers and quill pens - does that mean that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect Free Speech on television or computers? Claiming that technological advances render the 2A invalid, while exploiting the freedoms awarded under the First Amendment on a hand-held device the framers couldn't have imagined is the ultimate in hypocrisy!

As far as rocket launchers - a law abiding citizen who is not otherwise disqualified CAN own a rocket launcher, or a tank, or a fully automatic assault weapon with the proper NFA Stamps. When the 2A was written "ARMS" referred to the public being allowed to own exactly the same types of weapons as those in use by the military.


----------



## ST1300rider (Apr 27, 2017)

We don't really need to ban guns or make gun purchases harder. We need laws that make murder, robbery, rape and such illegal. People will no longer be murdered robbed or raped....

There you go. no more crime. Am I right?


----------



## Sc1006 (Apr 11, 2010)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> If we truly did not "infringe" at all don't you think we'd have some issues? By that thinking citizens should have access to any arms they want. Should we allow use of completely unregulated fully automatic firearms? Should we be able to buy a rocket launcher? My point is we can't realistically implement the 2A as it was written originally in today's world, most other gun owners will never agree with that I know. *Back when it was written guys had muskets, I guess you could buy a cannon if you could afford one, but that still ain't the same as what we have now*.


On the contrary. In 1722 a Puckle gun was demonstrated to fire a round in less than 7 seconds. The demonstration fires 63 rounds in 7 minutes. It was a flintlock revolver. That be 54 years before 1776.


----------



## kingfish501 (Oct 7, 2007)

TheDeeGeeBee...tell us what you know about privateers...or early civilian exploration parties who often carried 1pounder and 5 pounder cannons or " grenades"...small,thick baked clay containers filled with gunpowder, short fuse, that would blow apart and scatter the clay shards as schrapnel.

How about pepperbox pistols and muskets?


----------



## TheBeeDeeGee (Oct 3, 2017)

kingfish501 said:


> TheDeeGeeBee...tell us what you know about privateers...or early civilian exploration parties who often carried 1pounder and 5 pounder cannons or " grenades"...small,thick baked clay containers filled with gunpowder, short fuse, that would blow apart and scatter the clay shards as schrapnel.
> 
> How about pepperbox pistols and muskets?


 Yall are right, they had weapons just as effective back then. I conceed


----------



## kingfish501 (Oct 7, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> Yall are right, they had weapons just as effective back then. I conceed


In the case of pepperbox guns, civilians had them, the military did not.

You missed the point, as usual. Civilians owned the same weapons as the military.


----------



## PensacolaEd (Oct 3, 2007)

Don't try to confuse him with facts that contrad his feelings.....


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

TheBeeDeeGee said:


> Yall are right, they had weapons just as effective back then. I conceed


It's about danged time....


----------



## Boardfeet (Sep 27, 2007)

The house passed both gun control bills today. 
It will take 60 votes 2/3 in the senate to send to Sleepy Joe for signing into law.


----------



## spearfisher59 (Jan 3, 2016)

Splittine said:


> Are you saying our 2nd Amendment rights haven’t been violated in any way? Who was the last President that didn’t infringed on the 2nd?


JFK


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

Boardfeet said:


> The house passed both gun control bills today.
> It will take 60 votes 2/3 in the senate to send to Sleepy Joe for signing into law.


Until they decide to change the rules and do it with simple majority.....


----------

