How would the NRA fire people up without hyperbole? It was an assault, see, and it lasted for 8 years! But I hear it came to a crashing halt, which is hyperbole for "won the electoral vote ".
And there it is.
No. If you are prohibited from purchase, you are prohibited from possession.
Inclusion in NICS absolutely prohibits possession. Most states don’t (though some do) have a mechanism to seize firearms from people who become prohibited, but inclusion in NICS does in fact prohibit possession.
There what is?
“And there it is” what?
Am I wrong?
Constitutional rights are always a debate on where to draw the lines.
If you want to bow out of the discussion because someone will try to draw a line saying crossing it goes too far then fine. Griping that someone will draw those lines is not engaging in debate of the topic.
HurricaneDitka thinks that dealers reporting stolen shipments of guns to law enforcement to be an infringement on his gun owning rights. How? I have no clue but fine…he drew a line and then I push back at his position.
That’s how debates work here. Pretty sure you know that.
If I gather your meaning correctly, do you feel the second amendment is absolute, in that congress cannot pass any restrictions of any kind on gun ownership?
What comprises the assault, if such it can be termed? Very little indeed. A few Presidential orders here and there, the only way Obama could take to reform the gun laws as the route through Congress was barred to him. I have no doubt that if Obama had the power there would indeed have been a substantial assault on Second Amendment rights. He didn’t and there wasn’t.
But as with many things involving Trump the facts are totally irrelevant. He works with emotions, perceptions, and you have to admire the skill with which he does it. He learned during the campaign that the Press can be ignored, it doesn’t matter how they fact-check and what they print. Trump’s base, like their master, scorn the media other than the channels and papers that speak to them.
Welcome to 1984. Trump says there has been an assault on Second Amendment rights and instantly it becomes the truth, historical fact. Liberals deny it in vain. Speak truth to power used to be an effective way to challenge governments. But that’s difficult to do when truth is now what the Government says it is.
Democrats were a majority in both houses of congress when Obama took office. He had two years to fulfill the vision of democrats hating all things guns.
Very little happened on that front.
So, he had the power and ignored it as regards Second Amendment rights.
You can still carry a flintlock musket outdoors if you’re acting as a militia member, just as freely as ever. No Second Amendment rights have been infringed at all, nor have they ever been.
Obama did quite a lot *for *the firearms industry, actually, just by being a Democrat. That let them scare people into buying a lot more product. Sales are *down *substantially under Trump.
I have to admit, I still don’t get why Obama himself is considered the key figure, except under the simplest interpretation. He had some ability to create regulation through executive orders, and I guess he could decide how aggressive the BATFE and FBI were going to be in enforcing existing law, but the real power to gut the Second Amendment through legislation rests in the hands of congress. The President (and eventually, SCOTUS) can only stop them.
I would like to go back to this question because I don’t see how this threatens my gun bearing rights.
It doesn’t stop me from buying a gun generally (though the thief and/or shipping company did stop me from buying that particular gun - but that’s true whether or not I inform law enforcement) but I can still go buy another. It doesn’t stop me from selling guns that were not lost in transit. And all the guns that I already have, I still have.
I may disagree with some people about how much some other regulations limit 2nd amendment rights and whether or not that limitation is reasonable. I don’t even see this one.
I’m pretty sure Obama could have stood on a street corner giving ammunition to every passerby and the gun rights groups would complain that the gun grabber wasn’t giving out pistols.
Bone hinted that he thnks it’s some backdoor attempt at building a gun registry. ISTM, it would only be a stolen gun registry but 2nd amendment people are all about that slippery slope.
My response in post 2 was the observation that it would be necessary to agree on what constitutes Second Amendment rights before two people can meaningfully debate whether any given action was an assault on Second Amendment rights.
If President Obama had pushed for legislation that limited the sale of guns with flash suppressors, that’s only an assault if you agree that the Second Amendment operates (in balance with other constitutional and statutory forces) to protect the right to own flash suppressors.
It’s a meaningless observation, if any push (no matter how feeble) for any legislation (no matter how tepid) is an “assault” by definition.
Person A: Let’s examine the action and determine if it was an “assault” by any reasonable definition.
Person B: *Any *action is an assault, by definition.
In this case, the claimant (Trump) says an assault took place and the NRA members in attendance apparently agree. It would be reasonable to ask him (and them) how “assault” is defined, and then we could see if what actually happened meets that definition. If the definition is “any action taken to regulate gun ownership”, then I daresay calling it an “assault” is meaningless. It would be declaring that any personal interaction of any kind constitutes a personal assault, then claiming you’ve been assaulted.
I’d forgotten that and it sort of scuttles my post below the waterline. Ah well, I come here to learn as well as give vent so it’s all good. Thank you, Whack-a-Mole.
If I take a swing at you but I am so fucking incompetent that I shoot myself in the dick with my fist doesn’t mean you haven’t been assaulted.
But if there’s a registry of stolen guns, that would be inconvenient for people who want to buy stolen guns, so obviously that infringes on their right to have any gun they want.
They are not a danger to themselves. And they are not a danger to others… unless they have a gun or something.
Frankly I’m pretty happy with how things turned out under Obama. If we had McCain as POTUS when Sandy Hook, happened, even Feinstein couldn’t have fucked up that drive to ban guns.
We have practically evicerated the federal ban on short-barreled rifles with the advent of “arm braces”
We have a shitload of people who were never previously interested in guns going to ranges on a semi-regular basis.
We can carry firearms in national parks.
Gun and ammo manufacturers have increased production capacity and we might be looking at a long golden era of low ammo and gun prices, especially if Trump removes the restriction on import guns and ammo.
The number of states with constitutional carry increased like 600%
The number of states that did not permit carry dropped to zero.
I figure if we had 4 more years of Obama and we would have constitutional carry nationwide and gun stamps for poor people like we have food stamps for poor people right now.
I don’t know WTF the NRA is going to do now that Obama is not in the white house anymore.
If I were the NRA I would start secretly funding an amendment to let Obama run again.