Biden Position on Guns Is a Joke

[woodwork201]

Also my experiences point to drug usage as the biggest problem. Better paying jobs often require employees to submit to random drug screenings. Many who are not advancing in life choose dope over financial security. It's a self-inflicted wound.

I asked ourlocal Walmart manager about why the shelves are being stocked during peak shopping times instead of at night. His response was that they can't find anyone to work at night to stock. He said they get plenty of applicants but almost none of the applicants they get for any job can pass the drug screening.

 

[woodwork201]

Did I say he banned guns? No I did not.

But he did sign an EO banning an accessory for guns. If they can do it for one accessory, they can do it for more.

The problem with Trump's order is that he felt like he could ban something simply by EO. And the ATF ruled it was a machine gun, so, legally it is a gun that he banned.

Our constitution requires a specific process for enacting Federal laws and there's no process by which the Executive can use an EO to create a regulation or law. That power is only in the hands of Congress with Executive approval.

Once we accept that the government can do any one thing outside of the Constitution then we accept that they can do anything they choose outside of the Constitution. When Trump and the ATF agreed on terms to ban a product without a law passed by Congress they showed that they did not feel at all bound by the Constitution.

In almost all cases of bad laws and unconstitutional laws, it's not the single law that is so bad, it's the violation of the Constitution and the precedent of being OK to violate the Constitution which is the most significant harm.

 

[woodwork201]

The above is bullshit; "fake news" and "alternate facts" . . .

For a decade (2008-2017) ATF reviewed many bumpstock designs (including ones exactly like those used in the Las Vegas shooting) and consistently ruled they do not change a semi-auto into a machine gun.

In the wake of Las Vegas it was Congress which asked ATF to review those previous reviews and decisions on bumpstocks.

That review and the final action of enacting the rule that relied on the ATF reversing many previous decisions, really lies at Obama's grant of power to the AG/DOJ delegating the power to redefine all definitions pertaining to arms in EO-13637, (2013). As the bumpstock final rule said (linked below):

• "The definition of "machinegun" in 27 CFR 447 .11, promulgated pursuant to the portion of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778) delegated to the Attorney General by section l(n)(ii) of Executive Order 13637 . . . "

The bumpstock ban and all the bullshit that is pending right now, redefining the definition of frame and receiver, supposedly addressing "ghost guns" (effective date June 1) and the pistol brace rules AGAIN reversing years of ATF guidance, making millions of currently owned AR platform pistols into SBR's thus requiring NFA registration and tax, (effective date Aug 1), ALL depend on Obama's EO-13637, giving the DOJ the subjective power to redefine terms in law.

Here's some facts, Trump's EO never ordered the ATF to ban bumpstocks, it ordered the ATF to expedite their review (again, ordered by Congress, not the President) and finalize a rule for public comment -- it was, for all intents, a shit or get off the pot order . . .

Personally, I don't think Trump believed that a new rule would ever be approved and published (going by the history of the regulatory reviews).

The bumpstock final rule was the ATF stretching and overstepping its interpretive authority and it also served a political agenda; it put a cudgel in the hands of people like you, to beat Trump with, allowing people like you to stupidly define him as more anti-gun than Obama.

If you actually want to discuss the actual history of the final rule that banned bumpstocks keep your satements with in the facts. If you would like to actually review that factual history, it is recounted here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5635249/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.pdf

The President cannot give to the DOJ the authority to redefine a machine gun when the definition was defined by law - real law as in passed by both houses and signed by the President.

Where did Congress order the ATF to review the definition? Congress has no authority to order the ATF to do anything but you won't find anything where Congress made such an order. For Congress to make such an order would mean that both houses voted on such an order and passed it. For the order to be an order and not a request would then require the order to be written as a law and not just a request of Congress and then for the President to sign the law.

 

[woodwork201]

Then why is the NRA opposing Biden's attempts to stop illegal gun trafficking?

President Biden Announces More Actions to Reduce Gun Crime And Calls on Congress to Fund Community Policing and Community Violence Intervention | The White House

Today, the Biden Administration is announcing additional actions to reduce gun crime and make communities safer. This plan builds on the steps the

www.whitehouse.gov

What a lie. Biden is doing nothing at all to stop illegal gun trafficking. His efforts are very clearly, very explicitly, aimed at reducing legal gun purchases and have no intended effect on illegal purchases.

 

[woodwork201]

In the lower federal circuit courts dominated by liberals, by employing a scheme that they invented (the "two-step inquiry") for the singular purpose of ignoring and dismissing SCOTUS so unconstitutional laws could be sustained.

That situation will not be suffered for much longer, see my previous post.



I have never read any case that directly challenged the '94 AWB on Second Amendment grounds.

If you know of some hidden one, heard by some special secret court, can you send me a private message with the password to access the text of that decision?

There's only one legitimate level of scrutiny for constitutional challenges: absolute scrutiny. Either a thing violates the Constitution or it does not.

Given limited time and resources, a court might not choose to hear a case but if they do hear the case then they do not have constitutional authority to ignore or create exceptions to the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

The NRA is on record not giving a sht about Trumps “ ban “.

Seriously, you can’t survive with a 10 round mag pistol ? You aren’t going to carry an assault weapon around with you. Thats the main advantage of an assault rifle….light carry, low recoil and firepower. Do you really think you’re going to be attacked by a herd of wild pigs in heat ? I’m assuming you live in a residential or business area and you want to use a weapon with a 600 yard killing range ? That’s ridiculous. Get a permit, a couple of 20 gauge shotguns that everyone in your family can shoot and carry firearms you’ll always have with you…..with a permit. Hi cap 9 mm way over rated for anyone but a law Enforcement. They’re getting paid to face down multiple threats.

I have a permit in my pocket all the time:

Pocket Constitution of the United States (English)

52-page pocket Constitution of the United States (including The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27) & Declaration of Independence. Dimensions: 3.25″ X 6.5″.

nccs.net

What would be the purpose and source of this other permit you keep suggesting we need to have?

We've had these discussions over and over again, on this site and others, where there are posted dozens, but could easily be hundreds or thousands, of cases where multiple attackers are stopped by someone using standard (30-round) capacity AR magazines.

We've also posted many times examples of where even trained police, at very close range, miss with most shots when engaged in a shootout because shooting someone who shoots back at you is not as simple as shooting a deer during hunting season or a paper target.

And I do carry an AR-15 pistol with me, in my truck, whenever I leave home - without fail. I don't carry it inside the store but the idea that people just won't carry one is wrong. I also carry a .40 S&W pistol, 15+1 rounds and two spare mags on my person and more mags in the truck.

Before someone starts in with how "scared" I must be to carry such firepower, they'd be wrong. Because I don't go anywhere that I expect trouble, but I stay prepared for trouble if it should come unexpectedly, I have no need to be afraid. I seldom, if ever, even think about the weapons I carry except to practice at appropriate times and places so I can engage those weapons, if needed, without having to think about them.

 

[gipper]

Let me get this straight; you're saying that poverty exists because of crime and crime exists because of poverty. So, in your mind, there's no solution at all and we just have to live with it?

No.

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong. States and countries that have stricker gun laws have in average lower gun crime rates. The lone exceptions are states like Maine where there are more trees then people per acre.

Your comment about lower gun crime rates actually is completely false. Illinois is somewhere in the middle of gun crimes per 100K population on average but Chicago is among the highest in the nation. Illinois has less than then national average of gun crimes but Chicago has nearly double the national average of gun crimes. Wyoming has far less than half of Illinois gun crimes per 100K but has far more liberal gun laws than does Illinois.

Most states have wide variations between crime rates of the state overall and the crime rate in their metropolitan areas. In many cases, Illinois for example, the low-crime rural areas mask the evil in the high-crime cities. Smaller states with high-crime cities have higher overall crime stats because they have far lower rural populations to mask the numbers from the cities.

There are a lot of other reasons why states have differing gun crime rates and the number of guns or the gun laws. It has far more to do with demographics, culture, or many other reasons but there is absolutely no provable causation tied to gun laws and number of guns.

 

[woodwork201]

Blues ALWAYS had guns. It’s a fallacy thinking they didn’t. The biggest difference without question is, the blue house hold might have 5 firearms and the red will have 15.

So what is the correlation or causation between 15 guns and 5 guns in the home to gun crime rates? I only have two hands so, at the very best, I can use two guns at a time.

 

[woodwork201]

It’s called the free market. Are you advocating its elimination ?

I know that you, as do all Democrats, love slavery and genocide but how about we advocate to end slavery and genocide and let the mostly-free market work within that framework?

 

[woodwork201]

Banning bump stocks doesn't limit the 2nd Amendment.

Now, redefining words and giving them fake definitions, is infringing on our 2A rights.

Sure it does. Any time the government exceeds constitutional authority it empowers them to do so again. And, according to the government, and the court, the bump stock is a machine gun. The precedent is that the government can restrict guns at will and by executive order. That violates the 2nd Amendment.

And even if you look at bump stocks outside of guns, there is no enumerated power that allows the government to ban anything by executive order without a law passed by Congress.

 

[woodwork201]

so you are anti-free market?

American free markets are for Americans doing business in America with American products made from American components.

Why would we give equal access to our markets to companies, products, or materials from another nation when those nations don't have the same taxes, regulations, environmental requirements, or other restrictions that our companies have?

 

[Abatis]

The President cannot give to the DOJ the authority to redefine a machine gun when the definition was defined by law - real law as in passed by both houses and signed by the President.

I agree. The primary thrust of my post was simply to rebut what I quoted; the idea that "Trump signed an anti-gun EO that banned bump stocks" and "this action by Trump set a precedent for future presidents to whittle away at gun rights via EOs". Nowhere in my post -- directed to explain the actual history and regulatory and legal background -- did I endorse or support the claim of power to do what was done.

If any President set any precedent, was Obama's EO-13637, (2013) that established that Presidents can authorize agencies to interpret law to form regulations on arms, including review of definitions.

For bumpstocks, ATF didn't redefine machinegun, they read the definition in law, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) . . .

“The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”​

and decided that external accessories that facilitate bump-fire, meet the basic criteria in the law of a machinegun:

"ATF has now determined, based on its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, that these bump-stock-type devices, which harness recoil energy in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure, turn legal semiautomatic firearms into machineguns. Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle sequence “by a single function of the trigger” because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger."​

​

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

I'm not saying any of that is legally correct, just that it is the law . . . I don't think there is any dispute that ATF is redefining frame and receiver with the new regulations on "homemade" guns / 80% receivers . . .

Where did Congress order the ATF to review the definition? Congress has no authority to order the ATF to do anything but you won't find anything where Congress made such an order.

I should have said "initiated". ATF responded to a request by some Congress members for ATF to reevaluate the agency's previous determinations on bumpstocks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I asked ourlocal Walmart manager about why the shelves are being stocked during peak shopping times instead of at night. His response was that they can't find anyone to work at night to stock. He said they get plenty of applicants but almost none of the applicants they get for any job can pass the drug screening.

That's going on all across the country. Before I retired I used to be a local truck driver and businesses all sang the same song; everybody looking for straight workers. Some of the jobs paid very well for non-skilled labor and others were willing to pay to make you skilled labor, but dope trumps it all.

We either need to find a way to address the problem or make drug screening for employment illegal, at least for those not intoxicated on the job. The latter will be nearly impossible since it's insurance companies that push this crap and it's insurance companies that finance political campaigns.

I'm not one of those people who cry that big business runs our country, but between seat belt laws,national BA levels for drunk driving, and drug screenings for employees, it sure seems like they are running a major part of the show.

 

[2aguy]

Rural?

No Blacks so I guess you're just shooting one another.

THAT is what the stats say.
Most firearm deaths are the result of the gun owner killing:
Himself
His family
His friends
His neighbors

So, please, buy more guns. Kill more of yourselves.

I say win win!

Wrong, you doofus....

The way you guys lie is to use the word "acquaintance," as a way to lie and say this means wife, girlfriend and other family member....when in truth, it simply means the gang members who shot the other gang member knew the gang member he shot.....you lying piece of crap.....

Explain this.....

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Silly you. You’re truly astonished that the more people you have, the more shootings there will be. Maybe the math of rates keeps you from posting the truth. The most dangerous places to live, are mostly in gop controlled cities and states.
Here they are !

Most dangerous states in America for 2021:​

1. New Mexico (Photos)
2. Alaska (Photos)
3. Louisiana (Photos)
4. Arkansas (Photos)
5. South Carolina (Photos)
6. Tennessee (Photos)
7. Alabama (Photos)
8. Oklahoma (Photos)
9. Missouri (Photos)
10. Arizona (Photos)

you moron...explain this.....

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


Then this...the truth...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.
Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.
Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.
At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.
Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.
According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.
Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.
"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.


****************

The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

But that is of course not at all what it means.

In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.


And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate | National Review

 

[2aguy]

Sure, that‘s what makes most of the ten most dangerous cities under Republican control. Hilarious. You guys just make up shit. Most crime are by whites. 80% of murders were white on white. Keep making up shit. Fix News lives it.

You just lied about that....the most dangerous cities in this country are under democrat control...you asshole...

Here is a simple chart showing the political party of the mayor for the 30 cities with the highest murder rates in 2018. Twenty-eight of those cities are controlled by Democrats, and two are non-partisan. But while the two cities in North Carolina have non-partisan elections, both Goldboro and Salisbury tend to vote for Democrats.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

American free markets are for Americans doing business in America with American products made from American components.

Why would we give equal access to our markets to companies, products, or materials from another nation when those nations don't have the same taxes, regulations, environmental requirements, or other restrictions that our companies have?

If the government is restricting me from buying or punishing me from buying something not made in America, we do not have a free market.

 

[Abatis]

There's only one legitimate level of scrutiny for constitutional challenges: absolute scrutiny. Either a thing violates the Constitution or it does not.

In current SCOTUS operations, there are three levels of scrutiny, rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.

For the RKBA, of all the reasons for the possession and use of a firearm that can be argued to be constitutionally protected, only "self defense" has been deemed a fundamental right thus arguably owed strict scrutiny. That is not a formal dictate of the Court, it has not set any rules for standard of scrutiny.

I do expect this situation to change with the NYSRPA decision due soon. I expect SCOTUS to invalidate the process developed and used in the lower federal courts, the "two-step inquiry". I expect the Court will order the lower courts to use, "text, informed by history and tradition" as endorsed by Justice Thomas and explained by Justice Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II. That would eliminate the subjectiveness and imprecision of the current levels of scrutiny applied to the RKBA/2ndA.

Given limited time and resources, a court might not choose to hear a case but if they do hear the case then they do not have constitutional authority to ignore or create exceptions to the Constitution.

Well, there is a lot of "play in the joints" in the current application of scrutiny in gun cases. We can wish it was different but it is what it is, especially when it comes to applying the 2ndA to states under the 14th . . . It just isn't so cut and dry because states do possess some amount of power to set gun policy and that line needs to be established, where federal ability to dictate to states is rebuffed. As an example, the states have always possessed the power to establish the rules for carriage of arms; for that reason there will not be any "right to carry cncealed" coming from SCOTUS. I expect them to enforce a right to posses arms for self defense but the states will still possess the power to establish the manner of carry -- including requiring a permit / license for concealed carry.

The application and enforcement of the 2ndA is in its infancy; it was first waylayed / sidetracked by the "collective right" holdings in the lower federal courts begining in 1942. In those holdings the "individual right" was virtually extinguished for 66 years until Heller set it straight. The 2ndA was only incorporated in 2010 in McDonald, and now, trying to apply the 2ndA to states, when it isn't even fully established how it is applied federally, is where the "play in the joints" comes from. The 2ndA's enforcement is quite literally behind every other right's enforcement by 75 years . . .

 

[Flash]

As I was looking for the details of the anti-gun Republican presidents, I found the following comment by someone with the screen name Fred Frendly who does a great job of laying out all the points I was working on putting into words:

Fred Frendly September 8, 2015 At 13:29:​

Nixon hated guns and supported banning handguns outright, but never implemented any gun control because Vietnam and Watergate kept him too busy. Reagan signed the FOPA bill in 86, which ostensibly helped gun owners but banned a whole class of firearms. He also made the infamous AK47 speech in 89. He went on to champion Clintons AWB in 93. Bush the Elder in 1989 said “Our problem has been that, while fully automatic AK47s are banned in this country, semiautomatic ones present another whole set of issues. ATF has decided to ban temporarily the importation of more than 110,000 semiautomatic rifles, pending a ruling on whether such guns are suited to sporting purposes.” Bush I also tore up his NRA card in 1995. His son GW Bush WOULD have signed the sunsetting AWB but it never made it out of Congress. He did however sign the Patriot Act which took more privacy and liberty away than any gun control act could. Republicans have their share of anti gun actions and cannot be automatically trusted to be pro RKBA because of a large R next to their name.​

​

Question of the Day: Are You a Single Issue Voter? - The Truth About Guns

Our friend’s at the UK’s Telegraph surveyed the GOP’s seventeen (so far) presidential candidates, asking who owns firearms and how many. Three took the discreet approach, declining to disclose their inventory (assuming they have one). Carly Florina is gunless, but her hubby has a half dozen...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

One might argue that only Reagan actually signed a gun control bill, every Republican president in my lifetime, Eisenhower to Trump, has voiced anti-gun opinions - though Trump converted to pro-gun when running for office. Their support for gun control did more damage than the actual bills passed by Democrats because they empower the gun controllers and the Democrats. They give aid and comfort to the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms.

Their support for gun control is effectively used in gun control advertisements to convince those without strong, knowledge-based stances on gun control that it's OK to support limited gun control.

It would be nice if we had a Republican President that actually RESTORED gun rights. Instead, as your text said, the Republicans have snuck in some gun control shit.

I am still pissed at Reagan for letting the Hughes Amendment go through.