Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

27
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:33 am Universal background checks are only a good idea if the system is open to all and free. Otherwise it’s a way to prevent the poor and disadvantaged from access to guns. So under the current system no thanks. How about a universal background check to vote? Would that be a good idea as well. Perhaps a $15 fee every time you go vote. Would you consider that ok? Perhaps address the underlying causes of violence. Also 21 is an arbitrary age, people vote at 18 and can serve their country. Perhaps voting should be raised to 40, also just as arbitrary.
A BGC is $10 here. If anybody can afford a gun, they can afford a BGC...the rest are strawmen...is your driver's license free?

Drinking is 21yo..again, apples and oranges.

MY point is before ANYBODY rails on President Biden, they had better mention trump the traitor.

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

29
F4FEver wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:48 am
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:33 am Universal background checks are only a good idea if the system is open to all and free. Otherwise it’s a way to prevent the poor and disadvantaged from access to guns. So under the current system no thanks. How about a universal background check to vote? Would that be a good idea as well. Perhaps a $15 fee every time you go vote. Would you consider that ok? Perhaps address the underlying causes of violence. Also 21 is an arbitrary age, people vote at 18 and can serve their country. Perhaps voting should be raised to 40, also just as arbitrary.
A BGC is $10 here. If anybody can afford a gun, they can afford a BGC...the rest are strawmen...is your driver's license free?

Drinking is 21yo..again, apples and oranges.

MY point is before ANYBODY rails on President Biden, they had better mention trump the traitor.
So now you’re an expert on what a person of limited means can afford. BS. That’s turning a right to a privilege, those that can afford.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

30
lurker wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:03 am donald is relevant to this conversation for context, but if we ignore the donald argument the joe argument is still there and still very much compelling.
it appears to me that what joe wants to ban (for now) is actually magazines of capacity 20 (to be adjusted downward to 15, then 10, then...) or more, AND firearms capable of accepting such magazines. in other words, any firearm which uses removable box mags. so for now, my c96 and and m1 are safe, but my 1911 and AR and m14 clone are not. for now.
This. The word “capable” is key to his goal. I don’t give a shit about the past turd, biden is the president now.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

37
CDFingers wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:18 pm In California, we pay, big time. We even have to pay one dollar per ammo transaction--one round or one case, it's a buck each time.

CDFingers
That’s exactly where privilege leads. I can hear the “if you can afford a gun” comments. F’ that. A buck a vote! That’s also privilege.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

38
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:28 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:18 pm In California, we pay, big time. We even have to pay one dollar per ammo transaction--one round or one case, it's a buck each time.

CDFingers
That’s exactly where privilege leads. I can hear the “if you can afford a gun” comments. F’ that. A buck a vote! That’s also privilege.
Yeah, and out fees here in California will be (or already did, haven't purchased anything since Covid) going up. Taxes on firearm purchases to fund anti violence, so they say. Sin tax, dig?

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

39
Oh. I thought you said "beer tax."

Technically it's a background check fee. Yeah, it's a tax on ammo. A more fair move would be to pay one dollar for an ammo card, and they run it every time for free. It's hooked to the criminal data base. But noooooo. I would like to trace the bribes that got that one through.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

40
CDFingers wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:40 pm Oh. I thought you said "beer tax."

Technically it's a background check fee. Yeah, it's a tax on ammo. A more fair move would be to pay one dollar for an ammo card, and they run it every time for free. It's hooked to the criminal data base. But noooooo. I would like to trace the bribes that got that one through.

CDFingers
I believe there's legislation either in the works or passed for an excise tax on firearm sales. I could be wrong on that. Like I say, I haven't purchased anything in over two years...

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

41
featureless wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:32 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:40 pm Oh. I thought you said "beer tax."

Technically it's a background check fee. Yeah, it's a tax on ammo. A more fair move would be to pay one dollar for an ammo card, and they run it every time for free. It's hooked to the criminal data base. But noooooo. I would like to trace the bribes that got that one through.

CDFingers
I believe there's legislation either in the works or passed for an excise tax on firearm sales. I could be wrong on that. Like I say, I haven't purchased anything in over two years...
Same here, if only for the reason that I've reached the stage or age of knowing "enough." Still, there are at least a hundred loading experiments I need to do, so I may have to spend some money sooner or later.

I think they're spending their energy in the wrong place here.

CDFingers

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

42
CDFingers wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 5:48 pm
featureless wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:32 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:40 pm Oh. I thought you said "beer tax."

Technically it's a background check fee. Yeah, it's a tax on ammo. A more fair move would be to pay one dollar for an ammo card, and they run it every time for free. It's hooked to the criminal data base. But noooooo. I would like to trace the bribes that got that one through.

CDFingers
I believe there's legislation either in the works or passed for an excise tax on firearm sales. I could be wrong on that. Like I say, I haven't purchased anything in over two years...
Same here, if only for the reason that I've reached the stage or age of knowing "enough." Still, there are at least a hundred loading experiments I need to do, so I may have to spend some money sooner or later.

I think they're spending their energy in the wrong place here.

CDFingers

CDFingers

It's been longer since I bought a new firearm.

You're right, there is an assembly bill to impose an excise tax. The author is Marc Levine of San Rafael and it was defeated on the floor of the state assembly on June 3rd by 46 to 20 with 13 abstentions. A coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans reportedly defeated it. Then Levine resurrected it on June 10th as an urgency bill.
“This is a very challenging bill. But there is a path to 54 (votes),” Levine said. “The point isn’t to raise taxes on guns and ammunition. That’s just a means to make our communities safer from gun violence.”

Levine also said he thinks a ruling in federal court that overturned California’s 30-year-old ban on assault weapons could inspire more support.

“When you have a federal judge making rulings that potentially make our communities less safe and more dangerous, that puts added responsibility on lawmakers to act,” he said.
During a lengthy floor debate, Republicans lambasted the levy proposal as aimless and unnecessary, especially during a year when California has an estimated $76 billion surplus.

“We can fund this program as much as we want. If this is that important, then let’s do it. But trying to tax at a 10% and 11% rate a certain group is going to...drive those people out,” said Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta . “They will buy their guns on the black market, or in Arizona or Nevada or wherever it is, and you will not see that revenue.”

Sam Paredes, executive director of the Gun Owners of California, also called AB 1223 an “unconstitutional” plan that places “blame and responsibility on law-abiding gun owners” for violence they don’t commit.

Paredes said buying a gun in California is already an expensive and logistically rigorous process, and that lawmakers should focus more on mental health programs to solve the gun violence epidemic.

“In California, we have every possible gun control law you can think of already on the books,” Paredes said. “We have everything. And still all of those laws have not been able to curb gun violence...We need to focus and look for a people solution because gun solutions just don’t work.”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 97678.html

Fairly clear that the state assembly didn't want to pass the bill the first time, he probably get the same result the second time.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

44
There are fads in this business. Outlawing handguns was all the rage back before 'assault weapons' and before that it was melting-point laws and Saturday Night Specials. Before that, SBRs and sawed-off shotguns. Since "stabilized" AR pistols, Governors and Judges seem to be pretty well established at this point, I think we can all agree that the legislation didn't prevent anyone from finding functional loopholes - and the loopholes don't seem to have driven any functional increase in violence.

What I've seen of the data, you could outlaw every cartridge north of .22LR and it wouldn't change death rates, just the size of the holes.

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

45
wings wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:37 pm There are fads in this business. Outlawing handguns was all the rage back before 'assault weapons' and before that it was melting-point laws and Saturday Night Specials. Before that, SBRs and sawed-off shotguns. Since "stabilized" AR pistols, Governors and Judges seem to be pretty well established at this point, I think we can all agree that the legislation didn't prevent anyone from finding functional loopholes - and the loopholes don't seem to have driven any functional increase in violence.

What I've seen of the data, you could outlaw every cartridge north of .22LR and it wouldn't change death rates, just the size of the holes.
The media like an easy label that they can peddle and in the 1970s before social media, "Saturday Night Special" was one of those labels. It was a stereotype of blacks and Latinos out partying on Saturday nights, they weren't all gangbangers carrying a piece, but the stereotype implied it. The guns were small and concealable and cheap to buy, but doesn't mean cheaply made. Raven Arms, Phoenix Arms, Lorcin, Davis, Rohm - most made in So Cal. It's easy to imagine that "Saturday Night Special" was originally a slang term coined by cops.

Yes if the anti-gunners had their way everything would be outlawed except "alarm pistols" that fire only blanks. A sample of blank pistols from a French armorer, not cheap.
https://www.fusil-calais.com/en/374-alarm-weapon
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

46
highdesert wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:48 am
wings wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:37 pm There are fads in this business. Outlawing handguns was all the rage back before 'assault weapons' and before that it was melting-point laws and Saturday Night Specials. Before that, SBRs and sawed-off shotguns. Since "stabilized" AR pistols, Governors and Judges seem to be pretty well established at this point, I think we can all agree that the legislation didn't prevent anyone from finding functional loopholes - and the loopholes don't seem to have driven any functional increase in violence.

What I've seen of the data, you could outlaw every cartridge north of .22LR and it wouldn't change death rates, just the size of the holes.
The media like an easy label that they can peddle and in the 1970s before social media, "Saturday Night Special" was one of those labels. It was a stereotype of blacks and Latinos out partying on Saturday nights, they weren't all gangbangers carrying a piece, but the stereotype implied it. The guns were small and concealable and cheap to buy, but doesn't mean cheaply made. Raven Arms, Phoenix Arms, Lorcin, Davis, Rohm - most made in So Cal. It's easy to imagine that "Saturday Night Special" was originally a slang term coined by cops.

Yes if the anti-gunners had their way everything would be outlawed except "alarm pistols" that fire only blanks. A sample of blank pistols from a French armorer, not cheap.
https://www.fusil-calais.com/en/374-alarm-weapon
Not cheap and not shipping to US addresses, I would guess.

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

47
DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:32 am
highdesert wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:48 am
wings wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:37 pm There are fads in this business. Outlawing handguns was all the rage back before 'assault weapons' and before that it was melting-point laws and Saturday Night Specials. Before that, SBRs and sawed-off shotguns. Since "stabilized" AR pistols, Governors and Judges seem to be pretty well established at this point, I think we can all agree that the legislation didn't prevent anyone from finding functional loopholes - and the loopholes don't seem to have driven any functional increase in violence.

What I've seen of the data, you could outlaw every cartridge north of .22LR and it wouldn't change death rates, just the size of the holes.
The media like an easy label that they can peddle and in the 1970s before social media, "Saturday Night Special" was one of those labels. It was a stereotype of blacks and Latinos out partying on Saturday nights, they weren't all gangbangers carrying a piece, but the stereotype implied it. The guns were small and concealable and cheap to buy, but doesn't mean cheaply made. Raven Arms, Phoenix Arms, Lorcin, Davis, Rohm - most made in So Cal. It's easy to imagine that "Saturday Night Special" was originally a slang term coined by cops.

Yes if the anti-gunners had their way everything would be outlawed except "alarm pistols" that fire only blanks. A sample of blank pistols from a French armorer, not cheap.
https://www.fusil-calais.com/en/374-alarm-weapon
Not cheap and not shipping to US addresses, I would guess.
Yes, very pricey. ATF probably has some restrictions on them that would prevent importation.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

48
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:10 pm
wings wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:35 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:33 am Universal background checks are only a good idea if the system is open to all and free. Otherwise it’s a way to prevent the poor and disadvantaged from access to guns. So under the current system no thanks. How about a universal background check to vote? Would that be a good idea as well. Perhaps a $15 fee every time you go vote. Would you consider that ok? Perhaps address the underlying causes of violence. Also 21 is an arbitrary age, people vote at 18 and can serve their country. Perhaps voting should be raised to 40, also just as arbitrary.
You have to register to vote.

Think that through. Think that all the way through.

Voter ID? You have to pay to get any of the acceptable forms, and they limit access to those. Voting is absolutely the last right you want to compare to here.
Those are infringements too. Yes, I do want to compare it. If people had to pay each time they vote and prove they are not a danger to others by having a background check for each election then it would be comparable. I show a drivers license for both voting and buying guns, but I have to go through a background check and pay a fee each time for a gun purchase. That doesn’t happen when I vote. So yes, I’ll compare them.
I would invite wings, and those who express a similar sentiment, to think it all the way through Sikacz has a really good point that hasn't really been sufficiently addressed. We're talking about Constitutionally-enumerated rights here, and both voting and keeping/bearing arms are two of them. A right is a right, just as sacrosanct as any other right, hence the word.

As for Voter-ID, I'm all for it, provided that State ID's, including the "REAL-ID" version, are free to the public. If you lose it, then there's a nominal fee, say $10, to replace it...but your first one is free, as are the renewals. If you let it expire, same thing; it's free. If we did State ID's like this, then there shouldn't be a problem.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Biden elaborates on what firearms he wants to ban

49
Here's what Biden said about something related to 9mm back in 2019:
Speaking at the ‘House of Amazon,’ Joe Biden gently raises company’s role in middle-class job losses
While saying he supports the Second Amendment, Biden called the absolutist arguments of some gun-rights supporters “bizarre.” Noting people can’t own machine guns or bazookas, Biden said, “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests