Frankly, the facts of what Trump and Obama are doing is far more important than some random opinions on political discourse. You’re the one who brought up comparisons to the “war on science.” I would think that you’d have some thoughts as to whether the war on science has more substance than Obama’s so-called war on guns.
So, once again, surely you agree that Trump is actually trying to pass laws to drastically reduce scientific programs, whereas the substance to Obama’s alleged anti-gun policies amounts to a few dead-end legislative proposals after mass shootings, several more regulatory actions that really have minimal to no impact on gun ownership, and criticism that Obama just didn’t say the things you wanted him to?
(It’s funny, an interesting parallel between the so-called “special snowflake social justice warriors” and certain pro-gun views just occurred to me. The protests of each of those two groups seem increasingly obsessed with micro-aggressions rather than actual aggressions. When we are discussing Obama’s anti-gun actions (regardless of his personal opinions) and one of the major points of evidence is that he wanted companies to report guns lost in shipment, we’re clearly into micro-aggression territory.)
No, I don’t agree with the characterization of “several more regulatory actions that really have minimal to no impact on gun ownership”. The green-tip ban and rep-payee issues were significant and substantial in my eyes.
It wasn’t a “major” point. It was just one of several examples of the E.O.s that I was asked about.
Sure, like how some people get riled up about the significant and substantial issue of mispronouncing the term “cis” as in “cis gendered.” It’s a big, big deal to some people!!
Well, I could buy a bucket of 1000 rounds of .22 lr in 2007 for $30. I can no longer do that. Thanks to all the demand created by the gun industry’s greatest salesman, Obama, its closer to $100 now. I remember when having 10,000 rounds in your house meant you were David Koresh. Now you’re just prepared. Thanks Obama.
The ATF Operation Fast and Furious bought guns to be smuggled into Mexico so crimes would be committed in order to gin up opinions against guns in America.
One of the guns was used to kill Government agent Brian Terry.
It was a sneaky, stupid Government initiated disinformation campaign.
Following the discovery of that scam by a guy named Mike Vanderboegh the ATF issued a demand letter regarding the reporting of multiple long gun sales. After they were exposed to Congress they backed off and required reporting only by border state dealers.
Your link does not support the claim that the motive for the program was “… so crimes would be committed in order to gin up opinions against guns in America.”
Let’s try to quantify the impact. You said, “several more regulatory actions that really have minimal to no impact on gun ownership.” Do you know how many people lost their rights to purchase / own firearms because of the Social Security representative-payee rule?
Fortunately, it didn’t take effect until January 18th, and Congress repealed it in the middle of February. The rule had called for compliance by December 19th, and given the pace of government work, I suspect they didn’t get too far along in implementing it before it got repealed. So, to answer your question, none that I’m aware of, because the Republican Congress and President Trump acted swiftly to undo the action. If they had not, an estimated 75,000 people stood to lose their right to keep and bear arms.
How many people who are judged to be incapable of taking care of their own affairs have bought firearms in previous years? I would assume that it is a very small percentage of the overall class, but I await your rebuttal showing how many gun purchases would likely have been impacted, and how that number differs from my statement concerning “minimal to no impact on gun ownership.”
Look, I’m trying to ask you questions to draw out how big a deal this is. You say it is a big deal. Saying that 75,000 people COULD be impacted doesn’t tell the story of how many would be REASONABLY EXPECTED to be impacted.
This absurd exchange started when I challenged your examples of Obama’s assault on gun ownership, and I said that I doubted that the regulations would have anything but a minimal to no impact to gun ownership. Now you’re just nitpicking the questions I’m asking to draw out your conclusion that it is a big deal.
If there’s something like 45 million households with guns today, and this rule were implemented only to see that 44.98 million (or whatever) households had guns afterwards, then having gun ownership affected by less than one-half of one percent is pretty clearly a “minimal” impact.
ETA: And by the way – as a serious question – wouldn’t the gun ownership simply pass to the executor (or whatever the proper term is) of the person’s affairs? Like if grandpa isn’t allowed to drive anymore, odds are that the caretaker gets the car, right?
Do we have any idea how many of those 75,000 persons are currently gun owners or would be considering a purchase in the foreseeable future? Or did I miss something and the 75,000 figure are the gun owning subset of the rep-payees?