Biden Admin/117th Congress Gun Control

[Belsnickel]

Now, the Biden administration didn't come out swinging right away on gun control, but over the weekend there was a statement from Biden on the anniversary of the Parkland shooting that was, for lack of a better term, a shot across the bow for the 2A community.

Quote:This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.

This caused quite the stir in the firearms community, of course, especially given the filing of H.R. 127 earlier in the year which is a horrendous bill.

I'm not as in a tizzy about it as other firearms owners. First, the legislative filibuster would still be in play for this. Second, if no Republicans are moved on the issue it will never pass because of Manchin, who is very pro-2A. But, this does highlight where the administration is going to be heading on things. H.R. 127 doesn't concern me as much as it did a lot of others because, let's be honest, a lot of the stuff in there is a no-go for even most Democrats. That bill really is abysmally awful.

Anyway, I know I'm a more pro-gun lefty than most on here, but let's talk about these ideas. What are your thoughts on this?

Edit: I wanted to note, also, that all of the gun control bills that have been introduced have a prognosis in the single digits according to GovTrack which I checked after posting this thread, so I'm not just prognosticating on my own, here.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2021, 08:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, the Biden administration didn't come out swinging right away on gun control, but over the weekend there was a statement from Biden on the anniversary of the Parkland shooting that was, for lack of a better term, a shot across the bow for the 2A community.


This caused quite the stir in the firearms community, of course, especially given the filing of H.R. 127 earlier in the year which is a horrendous bill.

I'm not as in a tizzy about it as other firearms owners. First, the legislative filibuster would still be in play for this. Second, if no Republicans are moved on the issue it will never pass because of Manchin, who is very pro-2A. But, this does highlight where the administration is going to be heading on things. H.R. 127 doesn't concern me as much as it did a lot of others because, let's be honest, a lot of the stuff in there is a no-go for even most Democrats. That bill really is abysmally awful.

Anyway, I know I'm a more pro-gun lefty than most on here, but let's talk about these ideas. What are your thoughts on this?

Edit: I wanted to note, also, that all of the gun control bills that have been introduced have a prognosis in the single digits according to GovTrack which I checked after posting this thread, so I'm not just prognosticating on my own, here.

I really treat these gun bills like I do when elected federal officials talk about abortion:  It's just for votes because they know in their heart of hearts it will never pass.

Rand Paul introduced multiple abortion bills and one to eliminate the DOE...this year.  I am no more worried about them than this.

I still am pro-2A but still feel we could have some discussion and meeting about our gun culture but that needs to be, *I* think, separate from more legislation.

[NATI BENGALS]

After seeing how far trumpets were willing to go and how corrupt and complicit the republican party was in the trampling of our our democratic norms I am against any attempts of gun control atm other than background checks.

[treee]

I don't like the way a lot of dems approach gun reform. Yea maybe they're being hyperbolic about some of it but it is still unsettling. I'm a proponent of responsible firearm ownership. I can see the efficacy universal background checks. I think there is likely a plethora of policy to be found that can respect a citizen's right to bear arms while also reducing societal harm. I wish it wasn't mostly a wedge issue for both parties to throw red meat to their base.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 08:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, the Biden administration didn't come out swinging right away on gun control, but over the weekend there was a statement from Biden on the anniversary of the Parkland shooting that was, for lack of a better term, a shot across the bow for the 2A community.


This caused quite the stir in the firearms community, of course, especially given the filing of H.R. 127 earlier in the year which is a horrendous bill.

I'm not as in a tizzy about it as other firearms owners. First, the legislative filibuster would still be in play for this. Second, if no Republicans are moved on the issue it will never pass because of Manchin, who is very pro-2A. But, this does highlight where the administration is going to be heading on things. H.R. 127 doesn't concern me as much as it did a lot of others because, let's be honest, a lot of the stuff in there is a no-go for even most Democrats. That bill really is abysmally awful.

Anyway, I know I'm a more pro-gun lefty than most on here, but let's talk about these ideas. What are your thoughts on this?

Edit: I wanted to note, also, that all of the gun control bills that have been introduced have a prognosis in the single digits according to GovTrack which I checked after posting this thread, so I'm not just prognosticating on my own, here.

I kind of hope Biden does throw out some executive orders on gun control so a lawsuit can be fast tracked to SCOTUS.  My biggest issue with gun control groups and their Dem sympathizers is their entire argument is both an appeal to emotion and based on lies.

You'll frequently hear them say that ~36k people a year are killed by gun violence.  They always fail to mention that over two thirds of those are suicides, so not gun violence.  But the biggest issue is that their stated goal and their subsequent targets don't jive.  Handguns account for the vast, vast majority of actual gun violence.  And while California has backdoor banned many handguns (I still can't believe that bullshit law is on the books) with their approved roster, you never see new gun laws that actually attempt to prohibit the sale of handguns, with the exception of the inane "smart gun" legislation that keeps popping up every few years.  So instead they go for "assault weapons", which account for minimal deaths every year, under a 100.  They go after magazine capacity, which in no way reduces a weapons lethality.  They try and tie gun ownership up in as much red tape and fees as they can.  Lastly, they never, ever talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun related deaths are criminals killing other criminals, because in so doing they'd have to acknowledge that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem so much as it has a gang violence problem.

As has already been pointed out this is just a wedge issue to gin up votes and enthusiasm.

[Rotobeast]

Pandora's Bunker was opened a long time ago and you can acquire darned near anything you want out there. Gun control legislation will only perpetuate the demand and create a lot of new gunsmiths, right now. Duty to retreat was just removed from the lawbooks here in Ohio and they are pushing to make Ohio a 2A Sanctuary State. On a personal level, I have no issue with someone being required to take a basic safety course. I do agree that we need to do something to protect our children in schools, but I don't have the answer. Maybe we ask Veterans to volunteer to be evaluated and let them provide security ? I do support the idea of addressing mental health issues and increasing the punishment dealt out to those who commit crimes with firearms. If they continue to beat the "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine drum hard again, it will be throwing gasoline onto the fire and create a real insurrection. Now is not the time to push such a thing. The shelves are already emptied of ammunition and people are on edge. Let's wait a year until trying to force something through, allowing for cooler heads to be in the conversation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 12:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Pandora's Bunker was opened a long time ago and you can acquire darned near anything you want out there. Gun control legislation will only perpetuate the demand and create a lot of new gunsmiths, right now. Duty to retreat was just removed from the lawbooks here in Ohio and they are pushing to make Ohio a 2A Sanctuary State. On a personal level, I have no issue with someone being required to take a basic safety course. I do agree that we need to do something to protect our children in schools, but I don't have the answer. Maybe we ask Veterans to volunteer to be evaluated and let them provide security ? I do support the idea of addressing mental health issues and increasing the punishment dealt out to those who commit crimes with firearms. If they continue to beat the "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine drum hard again, it will be throwing gasoline onto the fire and create a real insurrection. Now is not the time to push such a thing. The shelves are already emptied of ammunition and people are on edge. Let's wait a year until trying to force something through, allowing for cooler heads to be in the conversation.

An interesting point that piggybacks on the underlined.  Here in Los Angeles the pro-criminal DA is prosecuting all minors in possession of a firearm cases as misdemeanors.  That'll show 'em!  It's almost like the left's position on gun control is based solely on ideology and not on facts or logic.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2021, 12:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Pandora's Bunker was opened a long time ago and you can acquire darned near anything you want out there. Gun control legislation will only perpetuate the demand and create a lot of new gunsmiths, right now. Duty to retreat was just removed from the lawbooks here in Ohio and they are pushing to make Ohio a 2A Sanctuary State. On a personal level, I have no issue with someone being required to take a basic safety course. I do agree that we need to do something to protect our children in schools, but I don't have the answer. Maybe we ask Veterans to volunteer to be evaluated and let them provide security ? I do support the idea of addressing mental health issues and increasing the punishment dealt out to those who commit crimes with firearms. If they continue to beat the "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine drum hard again, it will be throwing gasoline onto the fire and create a real insurrection. Now is not the time to push such a thing. The shelves are already emptied of ammunition and people are on edge. Let's wait a year until trying to force something through, allowing for cooler heads to be in the conversation.

I mean its the same with the "war on drugs".  They just created and perpetuated a black market for more drugs.

We can do more with less legislation but we also have to have people willing to talk about it vs people being "on edge" so they immediately think guns are the answer.

I said it earlier there is a "gun culture" and needs discussed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 01:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: I said it earlier there is a "gun culture" and needs discussed.

This is a frequent argument on the left, that we have to do something about the American obsession with firearms.  Let's examine this rationally.  Who is committing the vast majority of gun related crimes?  It's not your average 2A enthusiast who would absolutely be lumped into the left's version of "gun culture".  You're suggesting we address something that isn't even demonstrably a problem.  If you removed inner city gun violence from our criminal statistics we'd have homicide rates on par with Europe.  It's very clear where the problem is, but actually addressing the real problem destroys the anti-gun narrative, hence it doesn't occur. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2021, 12:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Pandora's Bunker was opened a long time ago and you can acquire darned near anything you want out there. Gun control legislation will only perpetuate the demand and create a lot of new gunsmiths, right now. Duty to retreat was just removed from the lawbooks here in Ohio and they are pushing to make Ohio a 2A Sanctuary State. On a personal level, I have no issue with someone being required to take a basic safety course. I do agree that we need to do something to protect our children in schools, but I don't have the answer. Maybe we ask Veterans to volunteer to be evaluated and let them provide security ? I do support the idea of addressing mental health issues and increasing the punishment dealt out to those who commit crimes with firearms. If they continue to beat the "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine drum hard again, it will be throwing gasoline onto the fire and create a real insurrection. Now is not the time to push such a thing. The shelves are already emptied of ammunition and people are on edge. Let's wait a year until trying to force something through, allowing for cooler heads to be in the conversation.

So, here is the problem with gun control, though, and this is where my leftist dismay with liberals comes into play. Gun control doesn't prevent everyone from owning certain things. It prevents marginalized communities from owning them. The poor and working class, BIPOC communities, the Alphabet Mafia, these are the groups disproportionately affected by it. Look at the 1986 ban on new automatic weapons. Yeah, you can still own a sub-machine gun, but the reduced supply has driven prices through the roof to the point where the cost of the tax stamp to own one is piddly. Any attempts to restrict firearms will have the same affect. I'm going to quote Marx, here, because it's important to know how the actual left feels about guns: “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

Anyway, SSF is spot on about the ignorance of liberal lawmakers on the topic. I felt like I was going to have an aneurysm reading H.R. 127 from Ms. Jackson, who has already demonstrated her ignorance on the topic in the past.

Now for the whole reason I quoted you, because my mini rant could have just been a general post. I am 100% against requiring training to purchase a firearm. I am in favor of requiring it to carry one outside of your home, concealed or open. I have seen too many LARPers with poor trigger discipline flagging their pals. But, that shouldn't be a requirement for ownership of one because that is exercising your rights.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2021, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is the problem with gun control, though, and this is where my leftist dismay with liberals comes into play. Gun control doesn't prevent everyone from owning certain things. It prevents marginalized communities from owning them. The poor and working class, BIPOC communities, the Alphabet Mafia, these are the groups disproportionately affected by it. Look at the 1986 ban on new automatic weapons. Yeah, you can still own a sub-machine gun, but the reduced supply has driven prices through the roof to the point where the cost of the tax stamp to own one is piddly. Any attempts to restrict firearms will have the same affect. I'm going to quote Marx, here, because it's important to know how the actual left feels about guns: “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

Anyway, SSF is spot on about the ignorance of liberal lawmakers on the topic. I felt like I was going to have an aneurysm reading H.R. 127 from Ms. Jackson, who has already demonstrated her ignorance on the topic in the past.

Now for the whole reason I quoted you, because my mini rant could have just been a general post. I am 100% against requiring training to purchase a firearm. I am in favor of requiring it to carry one outside of your home, concealed or open. I have seen too many LARPers with poor trigger discipline flagging their pals. But, that shouldn't be a requirement for ownership of one because that is exercising your rights.

I can understand that argument. 

Do you think it would stop the ones who lack training anyway?

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2021, 01:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: I can understand that argument. 

Do you think it would stop the ones who lack training anyway?

Nope. There will always be a lot of people violating the law in that way. However, it could drastically increase the number of people that receive training, which is always a good thing.

[Goalpost]

I'm not for placing blame on manufacturers. The immunity part.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2021, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  You're suggesting we address something that isn't even demonstrably a problem.

It is very easy to prove that gun crimes a problem in this country.  The fact that "most crimes are committed by criminals" has nothing to do wit this because none of the proposed legislation is aimed at stopping la abiding citizens from owning guns.  That is just the big lie that all pro-gun people try to put on the argument.

I agree with you on one point.  So called "assault rifles" are not part of the problem as long as we outlaw high capacity magazines.

BY FAR the biggest problem is how easy it is for criminals to obtain and possess guns to use in crimes.  Requiring gun ownership registration, and gun owner licensing would make it much easier for police to enforce laws already on the book regarding illegal possession and/or sale of firearms.  It would also make it possible to hold "law abiding gun owners" responsible for damage done by their guns.  Right now if a person is stopped while driving a car it is simple for the officer to determine if that person is allowed to drive a car and who is responsible for the car.  But when a person is stopped in possession of a gun it is sometimes either impossible or to complicated a procedure to justify detaining the person.

People who oppose laws that would not restrict ownership by law-abiding citizens are basically fighting to protect criminals use of guns.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2021, 01:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope. There will always be a lot of people violating the law in that way. However, it could drastically increase the number of people that receive training, which is always a good thing.

I just wonder if the more strident would say it is still a restriction and fight even that.  It's such a hot-button issue that any new proposal is often seen as that "slippery slope".  Even though I agree with you that it doesn't limit the right to own I can see an argument coming of "what does it matter if I own it if I can't carry it?" without this restriction on me.

[Rotobeast]

(02-16-2021, 01:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean its the same with the "war on drugs".  They just created and perpetuated a black market for more drugs.

We can do more with less legislation but we also have to have people willing to talk about it vs people being "on edge" so they immediately think guns are the answer.

I said it earlier there is a "gun culture" and needs discussed.

I am ALL ABOUT discussion in these matters, as long as folks remain civil. Unfortunately many folks get extremely emotional and lash out, creating combustible situations. I think we need more representation that is moderate and rational, on all sides. Sensationalizing extremes for the ease of campaigning has gotten us into a mess. Civil discourse on this, equality, and the drug war would go a long way. I am just against immediately pushing for legislation, as I feel it provokes a negative knee-jerk reaction.

(02-16-2021, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now for the whole reason I quoted you, because my mini rant could have just been a general post. I am 100% against requiring training to purchase a firearm. I am in favor of requiring it to carry one outside of your home, concealed or open. I have seen too many LARPers with poor trigger discipline flagging their pals. But, that shouldn't be a requirement for ownership of one because that is exercising your rights.

Agreed. I should have clarified that I agree with it in that aspect and possibly for use firearms on public lands.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2021, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Gun control doesn't prevent everyone from owning certain things. It prevents marginalized communities from owning them. The poor and working class, BIPOC communities, the Alphabet Mafia, these are the groups disproportionately affected by it.

But these are the exact communities that would benefit the most from laws that would restrict easy access to guns.  These are the comminities where most gun violence occurs.

Public safety policies are based on public safety, not economics.  People in marginalized communities are also effected more by requirements for drivers license and auto insurance.  It is also harder for them to afford to remove lead plumbing or paint from their homes.  This is unfortunate but it does not mean that they should be exempt from these public safety requirements.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 01:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just wonder if the more strident would say it is still a restriction and fight even that.  It's such a hot-button issue that any new proposal is often seen as that "slippery slope".  Even though I agree with you that it doesn't limit the right to own I can see an argument coming of "what does it matter if I own it if I can't carry it?" without this restriction on me.

Here's the problem, it's viewed as a slippery slope precisely because it is exactly that.  The Dems have shown that wherever they take over they will enact gun control legislation.  The bills that are pushed by Dems prove the slippery slope argument beyond any objective doubt.  Not one inch should be surrendered to these people because it's just the stepping stone to the next restriction.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2021, 01:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I am ALL ABOUT discussion in these matters, as long as folks remain civil. Unfortunately many folks get extremely emotional and lash out, creating combustible situations. I think we need more representation that is moderate and rational, on all sides. Sensationalizing extremes for the ease of campaigning has gotten us into a mess. Civil discourse on this, equality, and the drug war would go a long way. I am just against immediately pushing for legislation, as I feel it provokes a negative knee-jerk reaction.




Agreed. I should have clarified that I agree with it in that aspect and possibly for use firearms on public lands.

Yeah, I realize that no matter how much I agree with the idea/concept/right to own a gun I also have an emotional response to gun violence that would put me on the other side of the argument if that was the only thought I had on it.  It is not an easy subject to tread the middle line on which is why I mentioned abortion earlier because it is the same.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2021, 01:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the problem, it's viewed as a slippery slope precisely because it is exactly that.  The Dems have shown that wherever they take over they will enact gun control legislation.  The bills that are pushed by Dems prove the slippery slope argument beyond any objective doubt.  Not one inch should be surrendered to these people because it's just the stepping stone to the next restriction.

Actually it is not s slippery slope at all.  If liberals want to enact more strict guns laws they will.  They don't need to start small.


The United Sated has survived so long because it is based on laws created by democratic elections.  Now we have all these pro-gun people claiming that if the law does not go their way they are going to result to killing people who do not agree with them.   They try to compare their beliefs to the original Revolutionary War that created this country but that is a complete false equivalency.  The Revolutionary War was fought to give people the right to vote so that we could have a democracy.  At that time there was no way to change the law through democratic means or winning elections.  So the pro gun people who support the belief that they should be allowed to kill people when they lose elections are actually anti-democracy.  Their beliefs are treasonous.