PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Pilot Zone => Topic started by: nddons on November 16, 2018, 02:09:39 PM
-
The next two years will be fascinating, now that the left believes it has been unleashed. I predict a 1984-level win for Trump if they keep this shit up, and I’m certain they will.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066
-
From the article:
A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”
Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”
This is what Hillary was advocating during her campaign. Australian, and UK style forced bans and confiscation, and called it a "buy back". However, it would be mandatory. Their goal is to ban all semi automatic firearms, then go after the rest when people get used to them being gone.
-
The article is from May. Now that the elections are over and Kavanaugh is on the bench, this will never pass. I don't even think it would pass a Democratically controlled House. Even if it did, it certainly wouldn't even make it out of committee in the Senate. If Rep. Swalwell believes this is such a good idea, maybe he should suggest California implement it and see how that goes. I'm not even sure the 9th Circuit would uphold this.
-
Don't be so sure about the Supreme Court. Roberts has shown himself to be a traitor. The Dems will push something through the House, and with the narrow R margin in the Senate, there could possibly be a few flips, and it could pass there. Trump is a known deal maker. I could see him trading signing a Gun Bill for the Wall, or some other thing he wants.
A "mass shooting" or "school shooting" will be used to time the Bill, and the Media will talk it up 24/7 to generate manufactured "public outcry". The Bloomberg and Soros groups will also be out in full force. The NRA is too small to combat all of them, even though the media says they're some huge lobby.
-
NRA is almost BK. No senator except the two from TX are worried about supporting, or at least not arguing against a gun ban. It's too politically fractious for a senator to dig in their heels. What will happen will be because of lack of opposition. Few in the HR are strident gun supporters, and those few who are strident supporters of the 2A cannot form a large enough voting block to be useful.
The 2A will wither and die slowly, bit by bit as the left further infringes on gun ownership. By 2050, no one will own a gun that is not fully registered, and/or inspected, and documented by the feds/state govts. I'm expecting there will also be a semi-annual registration/licensing fee, and maybe mandatory 'safety' inspections similar to what airplanes go through.
-
I'm glad I'm going to age out of this life soon because they're not taking mine except from my cold dead hands. Motherfuckers.
-
I'm glad I'm going to age out of this life soon because they're not taking mine except from my cold dead hands. Motherfuckers.
I love you Rush.
-
I love you Rush.
I knew her first.
-
**Blush** awwww.... guys....
-
Get rid of him Rush. Now.
:)
-
I guess my problem with this is exactly what is a military style assault weapon? That label could easily be applied to practically any firearm.
I can't entirely blame the politicians, though. Such firearms do make it more facile for unhinged individuals to make themselves into wildly successful serial killers. Wouldn't it be nice if gun sellers refused to sell such weapons to lunatics?
-
The Oklahoma City bombers were much more efficient in their killing. Maybe we should make bombs illegal?
-
I guess my problem with this is exactly what is a military style assault weapon? That label could easily be applied to practically any firearm.
I can't entirely blame the politicians, though. Such firearms do make it more facile for unhinged individuals to make themselves into wildly successful serial killers. Wouldn't it be nice if gun sellers refused to sell such weapons to lunatics?
The Oklahoma City bombers were much more efficient in their killing. Maybe we should make bombs illegal?
Law abiding citizens who own and operate firearms within their constitutional rights are not the problem and have never been the problem.
Take such places as Chicago. Some of, if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Yet gun fatalities and injuries are the highest in the nation. Are the people who are doing the shooting legal, law abiding gun owners? I think we know the answer.
Look at Prohibition. All alcohol was banned in the US. Banned from production, banned from consumption. Yet Prohibition fueled organized crime and alcohol could be bought with the right connections. People like Al Capone and Joseph Kennedy became extremely wealthy over Prohibition and the black market.
So we use the Prohibition model and outlaw all firearms, period. Think that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Or even the mentally ill? As in Prohibition the only people that will suffer are the law abiding citizens.
-
Don't be so sure about the Supreme Court. Roberts has shown himself to be a traitor.
No he's not. Just because he didn't vote the way many wanted (myself included) on the Affordable Care Act doesn't make him a traitor and it's disingenuous to suggest that he is.
The Dems will push something through the House, and with the narrow R margin in the Senate, there could possibly be a few flips, and it could pass there. Trump is a known deal maker. I could see him trading signing a Gun Bill for the Wall, or some other thing he wants.
The Democrats may very well pass something in the House, but it won't make it through the Senate. Trump can make whatever deal he wants but unless he gets the Senate to support it, it won't happen. And if, somehow, he managed to trade gun control for the wall, I think that would sink his 2020 chances.
A "mass shooting" or "school shooting" will be used to time the Bill, and the Media will talk it up 24/7 to generate manufactured "public outcry". The Bloomberg and Soros groups will also be out in full force. The NRA is too small to combat all of them, even though the media says they're some huge lobby.
Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Las Vegas come to mind where there were mass shootings and no legislation moved as a result. You may be right that that would be the catalyst to start the talk again, or perhaps even draft legislation, but I don't think it's going to make a difference in whether or not it passes.
-
I guess my problem with this is exactly what is a military style assault weapon? That label could easily be applied to practically any firearm.
Correct. That's the problem when you try and ban a supposed "style" like we had with the assault weapons ban. The military uses hand guns, shot guns, and rifles (some used by civilians for hunting). It's just a big, scary term Democrats use to try and ban any weapons they can.
-
Law abiding citizens who own and operate firearms within their constitutional rights are not the problem and have never been the problem.
Take such places as Chicago. Some of, if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Yet gun fatalities and injuries are the highest in the nation. Are the people who are doing the shooting legal, law abiding gun owners? I think we know the answer.
Look at Prohibition. All alcohol was banned in the US. Banned from production, banned from consumption. Yet Prohibition fueled organized crime and alcohol could be bought with the right connections. People like Al Capone and Joseph Kennedy became extremely wealthy over Prohibition and the black market.
So we use the Prohibition model and outlaw all firearms, period. Think that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Or even the mentally ill? As in Prohibition the only people that will suffer are the law abiding citizens.
I think it's important to note that prohibition was actually a Constitutional amendment that was passed (and again to repeal it). There was enough support in the country at the time to pass that and when it was determined that it wasn't working, it was repealed. It's a good lesson from history. There hasn't been enough support to even get "universal background checks" passed, let alone a Constitutional amendment.
-
I think it's important to note that prohibition was actually a Constitutional amendment that was passed (and again to repeal it). There was enough support in the country at the time to pass that and when it was determined that it wasn't working, it was repealed. It's a good lesson from history. There hasn't been enough support to even get "universal background checks" passed, let alone a Constitutional amendment.
The progressives know this. This is why they want to usurp the constitution through the courts to ban guns.
-
The progressives know this. This is why they want to usurp the constitution through the courts to ban guns.
We are dying by a thousand cuts, and States have been allowed to pass gun laws which according to the Constitution in which they agreed when they became states it is protected by the 2A. These state laws, like yet another magazine capacity law recently passed in NJ (ten round limit) are UNCONSTITIONAL. Yet, the corrupt, activist courts uphold them.
-
We are dying by a thousand cuts, and States have been allowed to pass gun laws which according to the Constitution in which they agreed when they became states it is protected by the 2A. These state laws, like yet another magazine capacity law recently passed in NJ (ten round limit) are UNCONSTITIONAL. Yet, the corrupt, activist courts uphold them.
You're against Trump banning bump stocks then, right?
https://www.apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration Tuesday banned bump stocks, the firearm attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns and were used during the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
-
Bump stocks are a worthless novelty. In over forty years of shooting and belonging to several gun clubs, I have never seen one. That being said it opens up more regulations of anything the affects how a firearm fire, like making a trigger lighter, and slicker for target shooting.
So yes, I am against ANY bans, or restrictions on firearms you are able to BEAR, meaning carry. If you can carry it, then it is protected by the Second Amendment. In fact an argument can be made that you can KEEP larger weapons that can not be carried. For most of us handguns, rifles, and shotguns are enough, but I can understand a broader interpretation.
So Levelwing, I'm not going to fall into your little anti Trump trap. He's still been a good President overall, and a HELL of a lot better than Hillary. Look at all the new gun control laws the House is talking about now that they have the majority.
-
Bump stocks are a worthless novelty. In over forty years of shooting and belonging to several gun clubs, I have never seen one. That being said it opens up more regulations of anything the affects how a firearm fire, like making a trigger lighter, and slicker for target shooting.
So yes, I am against ANY bans, or restrictions on firearms you are able to BEAR, meaning carry. If you can carry it, then it is protected by the Second Amendment. In fact an argument can be made that you can KEEP larger weapons that can not be carried. For most of us handguns, rifles, and shotguns are enough, but I can understand a broader interpretation.
So Levelwing, I'm not going to fall into your little anti Trump trap. He's still been a good President overall, and a HELL of a lot better than Hillary. Look at all the new gun control laws the House is talking about now that they have the majority.
I'm not a card carrying MAGA member, but I'm not 100% anti-Trump, either. I give him credit where it's due and call him out when it's not. Unfortunately, that gets lost around here because it's either you're 100% on the Trump train or you're 100% against him, and that's just silly.
Trump has absolutely made a lot of good policy decisions, but this isn't one of them.
-
I'm not a card carrying MAGA member, but I'm not 100% anti-Trump, either. I give him credit where it's due and call him out when it's not. Unfortunately, that gets lost around here because it's either you're 100% on the Trump train or you're 100% against him, and that's just silly.
Trump has absolutely made a lot of good policy decisions, but this isn't one of them.
Actually, most of us are subconsciously waiting for Trump to step in it, which he does occasionally. I tend to pay the most attention to posts by people who are looking at all sides and have a healthy measure of skepticism. That said, though, one of our EAA members said in 2016 that when the choices for President were so awful, he’d vote for the one who’d be the most fun to watch.
A big win on that score, is Trump!
:)
-
Actually, most of us are subconsciously waiting for Trump to step in it, which he does occasionally.
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious.
I tend to pay the most attention to posts by people who are looking at all sides and have a healthy measure of skepticism. That said, though, one of our EAA members said in 2016 that when the choices for President were so awful, he’d vote for the one who’d be the most fun to watch.
A big win on that score, is Trump!
:)
There's certainly never a dull moment with Trump as president, that's for sure.
-
I'm not a card carrying MAGA member, but I'm not 100% anti-Trump, either. I give him credit where it's due and call him out when it's not. Unfortunately, that gets lost around here because it's either you're 100% on the Trump train or you're 100% against him, and that's just silly.
Trump has absolutely made a lot of good policy decisions, but this isn't one of them.
I don't like what Trump did on bump stocks, and I certainly don't like him signing off on the huge spending either. I have said that before, and others here have complained about his spending, and other things. I don't like when he says some stupid, childish things either and that gives the Media ammunition. So I don't see a 100% "Trump Train" here.
-
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious.
I was absolutely serious. President Trump does a lot and says a lot. That guarantees the occasional mistake. He’s the kind of President you do a lot of cheering for and cringing at.
-
(https://pics.me.me/one-of-the-best-comments-i-saw-online-was-from-21571112.png)
-
I'm not a card carrying MAGA member, but I'm not 100% anti-Trump, either. I give him credit where it's due and call him out when it's not. Unfortunately, that gets lost around here because it's either you're 100% on the Trump train or you're 100% against him, and that's just silly.
I hear a lot more conservatives complain about the stupid shit that Trump does than I hear liberals talking about the good stuff Trump does.
I'm getting tired of some of Trump's bullying tactics, but I am fully supportive of most of his objectives.
-
I was absolutely serious. President Trump does a lot and says a lot. That guarantees the occasional mistake. He’s the kind of President you do a lot of cheering for and cringing at.
Fair enough.
-
I hear a lot more conservatives complain about the stupid shit that Trump does than I hear liberals talking about the good stuff Trump does.
I'm getting tired of some of Trump's bullying tactics, but I am fully supportive of most of his objectives.
Conservatives are far more willing to call out their own (there are exceptions, of course) than liberals are. Liberals are required to be in lock step all the time or else they're not really part of the party.
I'm supportive of a lot of Trump's policies, but that doesn't mean I'm required to agree with every single thing he does. It doesn't make me "anti" or "pro" Trump for being objective.