The first gun bill from the new house GOP majority: grants more power to FBI

[Swordsmyth]

Or the writers of the GCA68, or of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of “68, or the full auto manufacturing ban from the early “80s, or the Brady Act, or the Assault Weapons Ban of “94, or … Need I continue?

Trusting in the feds for the “defense of basic rights” is a fool’s errand, and only a fool, or a full blown authoritarian would willingly support such nonsense.

Only a fool or a full blown authoritarian would oppose a law that restores basic rights that have been infringed.

[CCTelander]

Only a fool or a full blown authoritarian would oppose a law that restores basic rights that have been infringed.

Only a fool, or an authoritarian hoping to dupe a few folks into foolish behavior, fails to recognize the hook burried deeply within the seemingly attractive bait.

[Occam's Banana]

Federalizing gun laws is a really bad idea

Tell it to the writers of the 2ndA.

Tell it to the writers of the NFA, etc.

Tell it to the anti-gun states.

When it comes to gun rights and the rest of the BoR the level doesn't matter, the direction of the law does.

Boy, that sure is a whole lot of "etc.".

Good thing the founders federalized gun rights, ain't it?

I guess we really dodged a bullet (ha-ha) on that one.

SCOTUS belated and tepid enforcement of the federal level 2ndA is the only thing that might get rid of the evil laws at every level and it has already begun to do so.

Second Rule of Gun Safety: Never, ever depend on the government to prevent the government from taking your guns.

Meanwhile you are opposing a law that would restore the basic right to bear arms to millions of oppressed Americans, which side are you on again?

So let me get this straight - I do nothing more than cite the NFA and multiple other federalized abrogations of gun rights as a counterpoint to your invocation of the Second Amendment as a justification for the federalization of gun laws - and on that basis you assert that I oppose gun rights?

You are not a serious person.

[Swordsmyth]

Only a fool, or an authoritarian hoping to dupe a few folks into foolish behavior, fails to recognize the hook burried deeply within the seemingly attractive bait.

There is no hook.
You are just making things up.
Putting CCLs on the same state to state reciprocity status as Driver's Licenses will not create any threat to gun rights, even if the law is rescinded we will just be back to where we were before.
And as you yourself have already pointed out, federal level gun laws already exist in excessive numbers, so don't try to pretend this will allow them to try to make a new one they didn't have before.

This insistence by you that states be allowed to violate rights is terribly anti-liberty and calls your sincerity into question.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, keep running in circles.

Second Rule of Gun Safety: Never, ever depend on the government to prevent the government from taking your guns.

Then get out there and force blue states to respect the right to bear arms yourself, oh, wait, you aren't going to because you would get in trouble.

So let me get this straight - I do nothing more than cite the NFA and multiple other federalized abrogations of gun rights as a counterpoint to your invocation of the Second Amendment as a justification for the federalization of gun laws - and on that basis you assert that I oppose gun rights?

You are not a serious person.

You are not a serious person or a defender of liberty.
You know very well that you are opposing the reciprocity law that is under discussion in favor of letting the states violate the rights of the citizens or some fantasy rebellion that you won't start and that would have started generations ago if it was going to start over this issue.

We have a chance to restore the right to bear arms to a great degree, pick a side, are you for or against the right to bear arms?

[WisconsinLiberty]

Gun Bill to Identify Illegal Aliens Challenged by 2nd Amendment Group


The New American
January 13, 2023


House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has a number of “ready to go” bills being brought to the House floor to start off the 118th Congress*that address challenges facing hard-working families on issues ranging from energy, inflation, border security, life, taxpayer protection, and more. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) posted an outline of these bills being introduced, with one bill, the Illegal Alien NICS Alert Act, already facing scrutiny.

The bill requires the National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS) to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and relevant local law enforcement when a firearm transferee is illegally present in the United States. The purpose is to help find people who are in the United States illegally.*

However, Gun Owners of America (GOA), a Second Amendment advocacy group, sent out an alert to its members about the legislation, warning that it’s “NOT a pro-gun bill.” According to the GOA, “The bill would expand the FBI’s power to punish Americans who attempt to legally purchase a firearm from a commercial gun dealer by reporting them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This is why gun owners can’t blindly trust Congress to fight for our 2A rights.”*
...


Full Article:
https://thenewamerican.com/gun-bill-...endment-group/


Gun Owners of America
https://www.gunowners.org/

[unknown]

NICS.

Another NRA sponsored infringement.

[showpan]

bill requires the national instant criminal background check system to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and relevant state and local law enforcement agencies when the system indicates that a prospective firearm transferee is illegally or unlawfully in the US.

So flagging an illegal when they try to purchase a firearm is a bad thing...lol....while I may be against ALL gun laws, this one certainly only effects me and every CITIZEN of this country in a positive way by making it harder for illegals to purchase a gun. How many terrorist's (that we created), gang bangers and cartel members do you think have crossed the border so far?

[TheTexan]

Then get out there and force blue states to respect the right to bear arms yourself,

If you live in a blue state... leave.

If you don't live in a blue state... what they do within the confines of their own state, does not concern you

[Swordsmyth]

bill requires the national instant criminal background check system to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and relevant state and local law enforcement agencies when the system indicates that a prospective firearm transferee is illegally or unlawfully in the US.

So flagging an illegal when they try to purchase a firearm is a bad thing...lol....while I may be against ALL gun laws, this one certainly only effects me and every CITIZEN of this country in a positive way by making it harder for illegals to purchase a gun. How many terrorist's (that we created), gang bangers and cartel members do you think have crossed the border so far?

The danger is that they will purposely or accidentally flag US citizens as illegals.
Does anyone doubt that will happen considering the false positive rate of the current system and the insanity of the current administration?

[fisharmor]

I started reading this thread and thought 'oh wow did rpf finally stop polishing the republican knob?'
And then sword swallower showed up to reinforce the same failed idea that killed this movement 10 years ago.

[Occam's Banana]

So flagging an illegal when they try to purchase a firearm is a bad thing...lol....while I may be against ALL gun laws, this one certainly only effects me and every CITIZEN of this country in a positive way by making it harder for illegals to purchase a gun. How many terrorist's (that we created), gang bangers and cartel members do you think have crossed the border so far?

Fixed: "[...] making it harder for illegals to legally purchase a gun."

LOL

How's that worked out with respect to native "terrorists (that we created), gang bangers and cartel members"?

LOL again

[Swordsmyth]

I started reading this thread and thought 'oh wow did rpf finally stop polishing the republican knob?'
And then sword swallower showed up to reinforce the same failed idea that killed this movement 10 years ago.

What killed the movement was impractical nonsense like what I argued against.
Those opposed to me in this thread are literally placing state power above individual rights, and one of the most essential rights at that.
It's hilarious that they claim to be libertarian/anarchist.

Go ahead and lick those blue state boots harder and see what it gets you.

[CCTelander]

What killed the movement was impractical nonsense like what I argued against.
Those opposed to me in this thread are literally placing state power above individual rights, and one of the most essential rights at that.
It's hilarious that they claim to be libertarian/anarchist.

Go ahead and lick those blue state boots harder and see what it gets you.

You might try arguing against the actual positions which your opponents have taken rather than the straw men you keep erecting, but that would require a level of forthright intellectual honesty of which you are obviously quite incapable.

[Occam's Banana]

I started reading this thread and thought 'oh wow did rpf finally stop polishing the republican knob?'
And then sword swallower showed up to reinforce the same failed idea that killed this movement 10 years ago.

Don't you understand?

The feds are "the only thing" that can force the states to be free (certainly not the states themselves - assuming they even want to be free).

Just the feds, and only the feds. (Just ask Thomas Jefferson Alexander "hang the Whiskey rebels" Hamilton.)

Therefore, if you don't support the feds (whatever "support" is supposed to mean), then you hate freedom.

Only when Washington, D.C. is permitted to dictate to all can freedom be achieved.[1]

So dammit - get with the program, you freedom-hating ingrate!



[1] And if D.C. dictates things like the NFA, ATF regulations, etc., etc., etc. - well, then, hey, at least the feds might give us back a crumb or two for every loaf they take.

[acptulsa]

Those opposed to me in this thread are literally placing state power above individual rights, and one of the most essential rights at that.
It's hilarious that they claim to be libertarian/anarchist.

What's more hilarious is that you're using the fact that Americans tend to differentiate state and federal to propagandize the lie that the U.S. isn't a state. And even funnier that you equate the federal state, which is obviously farther from being accountable to citizens (both because of the size of the consensus required, and because the federal reserve prints money for it) as "individual" and only the little states as a "state".

But the funniest thing of all is, this delusion was sold to whole generations by touting how the civil rights act of 1964 made Alabama and Mississippi stop abusing their blacks, a questionable claim with which you are on record as disagreeing. If you don't agree with the claim, how are you still brainwashed into buying the conclusion drawn from that claim?

Republicans.

[Swordsmyth]

You might try arguing against the actual positions which your opponents have taken rather than the straw men you keep erecting, but that would require a level of forthright intellectual honesty of which you are obviously quite incapable.

I did.
I said the individual right to keep and bear arms should be enforced by every level of government and I was told states rights were more important.

[Swordsmyth]

Don't you understand?

The feds are "the only thing" that can force the states to be free (certainly not the states themselves - assuming they even want to be free).

Just the feds, and only the feds. (Just ask Thomas Jefferson Alexander "hang the Whiskey rebels" Hamilton.)

Therefore, if you don't support the feds (whatever "support" is supposed to mean), then you hate freedom.

Only when Washington, D.C. is permitted to dictate to all can freedom be achieved.[1]

So dammit - get with the program, you freedom-hating ingrate!



[1] And if D.C. dictates things like the NFA, ATF regulations, etc., etc., etc. - well, then, hey, at least the feds might give us back a crumb or two for every loaf they take.

Do you see the blue states enforcing the 2ndA? no
Is SCOTUS enforcing the 2ndA more than the blue (and even some red) states? yes
Does the proposed reciprocation bill enforce it? yes
I like how you pretend I don't want the states to enforce it.
Are you going to get out there and enforce it? no
Take any enforcement you can get and quit putting state power above individual rights.

[Swordsmyth]

What's more hilarious is that you're using the fact that Americans tend to differentiate state and federal to propagandize the lie that the U.S. isn't a state. And even funnier that you equate the federal state, which is obviously farther from being accountable to citizens (both because of the size of the consensus required, and because the federal reserve prints money for it) as "individual" and only the little states as a "state".

But the funniest thing of all is, this delusion was sold to whole generations by touting how the civil rights act of 1964 made Alabama and Mississippi stop abusing their blacks, a questionable claim with which you are on record as disagreeing. If you don't agree with the claim, how are you still brainwashed into buying the conclusion drawn from that claim?

Republicans.

The 2ndA is in the Constitution.
The Civil Rights Act is not.
Keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right.
Forcing others to associate with you is not.

Nice try but no cigar.

The feds were empowered to enforce the Constitution (including the 2ndA) by Article 6 from the very beginning.

[Occam's Banana]

Do you see the blue states enforcing the 2ndA? no

No, I don't. So what?

I don't care about the blue states any more than I care about Canada or Timbuktu.

Is SCOTUS enforcing the 2ndA more than the blue (and even some red) states? yes

SCOTUS does not "enforce" anything (the executive does).

SCOTUS is not coming to save you.

Does the proposed reciprocation bill enforce it? yes

*yawn* So what? I already live in a state with reciprocation.

And if I have reason to go to an unreciprocating state, then I'll weigh the fact of their non-reciprocation in deciding whether or how to go there (the same as I would when deciding whether or how to go to Canada or Timbuktu).

I like how you pretend I don't want the states to enforce it.

I didn't say anything about you not "want[ing] the states to enforce it". (These fantasies you make up about what others say or "really" mean is why I previously said you are not a serious person.)

However, you did explicitly say that "SCOTUS [enforcement] is the only thing that might get rid of the evil laws at every level" (emphasis added) - so if you were just bloviating and didn't actually mean that, then I'm glad to hear it.

Are you going to get out there and enforce it? no

That's right. I'm not. Why should I?

If there aren't enough people in places like New York who give enough of a damn to do something about it for themselves, then why the hell should I expend any time or effort trying to do it for them?

Take any enforcement you can get and quit putting state power above individual rights.

Quit exalting federal power that - at best - has only ever given (and only ever will give) a crumb back for every loaf it takes.

As I said in regard to the Bruen decision:

Don't get me wrong - I love the outcome of this ruling, and I am glad it happened, too.

But we should absolutely not be in a position where the feds get to make these calls in the first place.

Except against themselves - if SCOTUS overturned the (federal) National Firearms Act, you'd not hear a peep of objection out of me.

(Though I would still prefer that it happen because states said "$#@! you, no!" to the feds instead of "please with sugar?" to SCOTUS.)

If the blue states you are so concerned about $#@! their peoples' rights over, then at least their $#@!ery is confined to those states.

But when the feds do the same thing, their $#@!ery is applied to everyone in America.

As nice and pleasing as it might be, your precious reciprocation bill does absolutely nothing to change that dynamic - it's just another crumb that ends up reinforcing it. (It's not even debatable that the feds have done more to abrogate gun rights than they have to protect them - the Second Amendment to the contrary notwithstanding.)

[Swordsmyth]

No, I don't. So what?

I don't care about the blue states any more than I care about Canada or Timbuktu.



SCOTUS does not "enforce" anything (the executive does).

SCOTUS is not coming to save you.



*yawn* So what? I already live in a state with reciprocation.

And if I have reason to go to an unreciprocating state, then I'll weigh the fact of their non-reciprocation in deciding whether or how to go there (the same as I would when deciding whether or how to go to Canada or Timbuktu).



I didn't say anything about you not "want[ing] the states to enforce it". (These fantasies you make up about what others say or "really" mean is why I previously said you are not a serious person.)

However, you did explicitly say that "SCOTUS [enforcement] is the only thing that might get rid of the evil laws at every level" (emphasis added) - so if you were just bloviating and didn't actually mean that, then I'm glad to hear it.



That's right. I'm not. Why should I?

If there aren't enough people in places like New York who give enough of a damn to do something about it for themselves, then why the hell should I expend any time or effort trying to do it for them?



Quit exalting federal power that - at best - has only ever given (and only ever will give) a crumb back for every loaf it takes.

As I said in regard to the Bruen decision:


If the blue states you are so concerned about $#@! their peoples' rights over, then at least their $#@!ery is confined to those states.

But when the feds do the same thing, their $#@!ery is applied to everyone in America.

As nice and pleasing as it might be, your precious reciprocation bill does absolutely nothing to change that dynamic - it's just another crumb that ends up reinforcing it. (It's not even debatable that the feds have done more to abrogate gun rights than they have to protect them - the Second Amendment to the contrary notwithstanding.)

That's a bunch of bunk.
Blue state garbage is never confined to the blue states, it spreads like cancer.
It also infringes on the rights of any American who has to travel through them along with the rights of Americans trapped in them.
You don't care about liberty or your countrymen, you only care about you and your bizarre legal theories, but that attitude will cost you your liberty in the end.
SCOTUS enforces the Constitution and determines what laws the executive will enforce.
The reciprocation law doesn't do a thing to expand or reinforce federal power, the feds already had or took far more power, the only thing it does is restore a little bit of the liberty the states have infringed.
You are insisting that we can't even have the crumbs and must let the states take them too.

[acptulsa]

The 2ndA is in the Constitution.

Aside from this being a complete deflection from what I said, and aside from the undeniable facts that OB pointed out (that the Fed has done more to abrogate rights, and that federal efforts affect many more people), you seem to be forgetting that states have constitutions too. None of them protect the right to bear arms? Have you read them all? Have you read any of them?

Now. Care to try your hand at being a serious person, and tell us how this nation and its federal government are not a state, but is an individual? And how the various states are threatening the rights of that individual bureaucracy? Because you said it, you should be willing to defend it.

[Occam's Banana]

[ ]
You are insisting that we can't even have the crumbs and must let the states take them too.

[fisharmor]

The reciprocation law doesn't do a thing to expand or reinforce federal power, the feds already had or took far more power, the only thing it does is restore a little bit of the liberty the states have infringed.
You are insisting that we can't even have the crumbs and must let the states take them too.

Well, I guess the same old non-argument is happening still.
No, what killed this movement was the idea of WE HAVE TO SUPOPRT TEH REPBULICANS HURR DURR precisely to be able to get those crumbs. That was the openly stated reason at the time: play the game, get on committees, become a swamp creature, and get your crumb.

Leaving aside for a second the fact that some of us (good handful in this thread, anyway) have a tiny modicum of basic $#@!ing self respect, this flies in the face of the whole "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" slogan. The reason we were apathetic is because we knew this was the game before he showed up. He gave us hope the game could be different.

Then we were told to go back home, sit down, shut up, and play the same game we thought we were getting away from. And we went right back to being apathetic.

If you think you can restart a movement on that, good luck. I don't believe there are enough compulsive gamblers in the world who will all keep lining up to pull the lever thinking "this time it's gonna hit for sure" for it to be an actual ideology. The rest of us grew out of that mentality somewhere around 15 and we have better $#@! to do with our lives.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, I guess the same old non-argument is happening still.
No, what killed this movement was the idea of WE HAVE TO SUPOPRT TEH REPBULICANS HURR DURR precisely to be able to get those crumbs. That was the openly stated reason at the time: play the game, get on committees, become a swamp creature, and get your crumb.

Leaving aside for a second the fact that some of us (good handful in this thread, anyway) have a tiny modicum of basic $#@!ing self respect, this flies in the face of the whole "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" slogan. The reason we were apathetic is because we knew this was the game before he showed up. He gave us hope the game could be different.

Then we were told to go back home, sit down, shut up, and play the same game we thought we were getting away from. And we went right back to being apathetic.

If you think you can restart a movement on that, good luck. I don't believe there are enough compulsive gamblers in the world who will all keep lining up to pull the lever thinking "this time it's gonna hit for sure" for it to be an actual ideology. The rest of us grew out of that mentality somewhere around 15 and we have better $#@! to do with our lives.

We were just starting to have success following Ron's orders when everyone gave up because that success was building slowly and wasn't instant gratification.
Those who really cared joined MAGA and have had far more success than those who prefer shining their self awarded purity trophies.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
You gave up on leading, you refused to follow, and now you insist on getting in the way.

[TheTexan]

We were just starting to have success following Ron's orders when everyone gave up because that success was building slowly and wasn't instant gratification.

More like, people stopped expending time and energy on what was obviously a failing strategy.

To say that we failed spectacularly at "playing the[ir] game", would be quite an understatement.

[CCTelander]

I did.
I said the individual right to keep and bear arms should be enforced by every level of government and I was told states rights were more important.

Nah, you didn’t. And you STILL aren’t.

Nobody, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, in this thread has told you that “states [sic] rigjts are more important.” You’re just making that $#@! up. The actual arguments offered are of a very different character, and are much more nuanced than that. But dealing with those would require some actual effort beyond merely regurgitating what you've already said ad nauseam, declaring yourself the “winner” and labelling your opponent as anti-liberty.

[Occam's Banana]

I said the individual right to keep and bear arms should be enforced by every level of government and I was told states rights were more important.

Nobody, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, in this thread has told you that “states [sic] rigjts are more important.” You’re just making that $#@! up. [...]

He knows this. He has been explicitly told so before.

Again, from the Bruen thread:

You are siding with tyrants at the state level to satisfy some bizarre dogma about states rights [...]

[...] I didn't say anything at all about "states' rights" ("dogma[tically]" or otherwise), because states don't have rights - only individual people do.

His program isn't robust enough to cope with such inputs, though, so it just spits out preset boilerplate.

[CCTelander]

He knows this. He has been explicitly told so before.

Again, from the Bruen thread:


His program isn't robust enough to cope with such inputs, though, so it just spits out preset boilerplate.

I’m curious to see, with recent advancements in AI, if we rate an upgraded version. In fact, I’m all tingly with anticipation! Not.

[Swordsmyth]

Nah, you didn’t. And you STILL aren’t.

Nobody, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, in this thread has told you that “states [sic] rigjts are more important.” You’re just making that $#@! up. The actual arguments offered are of a very different character, and are much more nuanced than that. But dealing with those would require some actual effort beyond merely regurgitating what you've already said ad nauseam, declaring yourself the “winner” and labelling your opponent as anti-liberty.

He knows this. He has been explicitly told so before.

Again, from the Bruen thread:


His program isn't robust enough to cope with such inputs, though, so it just spits out preset boilerplate.

All elaborate cover for saying that only states should get to enforce or infringe the 2ndA at their whim.