Defensive Carry banner

Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control/Biden reassures gun groups

3K views 39 replies 33 participants last post by  gtfoxy 
#1 ·
Two separate article......

Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control
Drawing on the lessons from battles in the 1980s and ’90s over the Brady Bill, which failed in Congress several times before ultimately passing, gun control supporters believe they can prevail by working on a two-pronged strategy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/u...tly-seek-a-new-path-on-gun-control.html?_r=2&

Biden reassures gun groups
Vice President Joe Biden reassured leading gun control groups Thursday that the administration remains committed to pushing an expansion of background checks for gun purchases through Congress, according to one of the event's attendees.
Biden reassures gun groups ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 
#3 ·
Meanwhile, a separate gun measure, an anti-trafficking bill, is the subject of talks between Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and two Republican senators who voted no on the background check bill. The Republicans, Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, are discussing ways they might support the bill, which would criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm.
:aargh4:Yep, lets make a law that makes something that is already illegal, illegal!:slap:
 
#4 ·
"...are discussing ways they might support the bill, which would criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm."



Not funny at all. This 'anti-trafficking' concept is backdoor to gun registration and UBC.

If you sell a gun, and it ends up at a crime scene, you go to jail unless you can prove you sold it to someone that could pass a BC. So at the bare minimun you need record keeping on all sales/transfers to protect yourself, but I suspect most will elect for a BC pior to the sale.

Then how does uncle sam track this 'trafficking?' Seems they would need the same registration scheme to enforce anti-trafficking that they would need for UBC, doesn't it?

We're in very dicy waters friends.
 
#5 ·
And yet our country is $17TRILLION in debt, our military has a CUT budget, we have no White House tours, our new Healthcare system is a "TRAINWRECK"(Sen Baucus, MT), and we still send foreign aid to countries who hate the US. Oh I forgot, the government pay millions to keep zero balance accounts open....wasting more money. LINK: Government spends thousands of taxpayer dollars on absolutely nothing | Fox News
 
#6 ·
The path they need to seek is crime control. Disarming would-be victims does nothing to help ensure they become victims. Tracing everyone's transactions doesn't stop felons from arming themselves. "Trafficking" is already unlawful, as is providing arms to felons, as are "straw" purchases. But then, they know this. It's just that crime control isn't really what they want to accomplish. IMO, ultimately disarming and criminalizing all citizens is.
 
#7 ·
"Quietly" is a keyword here, and it's very disturbing to me.

Obviously the public is riled up, so let's hide our intentions from the public (so they'll be quiet) and let's do what we want by doing it behind closed doors.

I can't hardly wait for 2014.
 
#9 ·
"Quietly" is a keyword here, and it's very disturbing to me.
So long as it's unconstitutional liberty-control and infringement they're seeking, it'll always be disturbing. As is the mere fact they choose to plan their next round of attempted eviscerations behind closed doors. Violation of their sworn oaths of office always is.
 
#10 ·
I think engaging in a little unconstitutional activity of our own might send a message: start a recall campaign for these yahoos. It hardly matters if it were successful. It would get their attention, cause a distraction, get some press and send a chilling message. Once it fails, start a campaign to amend the Constitution to allow recall of Senators and Congressmen. I'd love to put these folks on the defensive and see them squirm for a change.
 
#17 ·
Crime control? The majority of PD's in my local area are no longer proactive they only react to calls, few residential patrols but they do make the local convenience stores much safer with their presence.:smile:
 
#18 ·
The comments below the NYT article make me even more angry than the actual article. The imbecile who describes himself as a "western gun owner" is fine with banning all but bolt-guns an lever-guns because "real gun owners know they're way better than assault rifles." What a steaming pile. With people like that running around why do we even need a Brady Campaign.
 
#21 ·
And you're wondering why the ammo situation hasn't improved?

Until " We the People" put an end to these assaults on The Constitution, the idiocy will continue.

Those, like "the western gun owner" , who support these assaults because it "doesn't affect them", are in for a rude awakening when it does affect them and there's no one left to support them.

To those that seek to make "fundamental changes" to our country, I'll say this - "DON'T LEAVE IT ALONE: JUST LEAVE. PLEASE GO AND TAKE ALL YOUR FRIENDS WITH YOU"
 
#23 ·
Lets go back to Bill Clinton and Gun control. How did the congress and Senate fare when they voted for gun control? 20 house congressmen lost their seats for voting for the assault weapons ban. Lets see how the mid term elections go.

There are a lot of Democrats that hunt and shoot.

If you get excited over what Joe Biden says I think you need a new hat that is not so tight.
 
#25 ·
Look I guess my point is: I think we need to regain a tactical advantage. Can we apply what we know to the situation at hand? From what I've read when confronted with a criminal you are already at a tactical disadvantage. Using a tactical light, pepper spray or moving off the x all help you regain that tactical edge. We have won a momentary victory but sitting around waiting for our enemy to regroup and hope for a better outcome is not a strategy, it's insane. We need to put them on the defensive. If all we do is keep doing what we've been doing we will lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccw9mm
#30 ·
Exactly,the feds desire to set the stage so that private gun owners are criminals.If you were a gun owner before this is accomplished then they will set things up so anything you do with your legally possesed firearms will be illegal.....complete crimminalization.
 
#31 ·
Us old timers remember Richard Nixon (aka Tricky Dick). The press hated him. The Democrats hated him. Now Barry (As i call the POTUS) the press loves, and the Dems love. Not much difference in the way they used underhanded methods. But the SHEEPLE seem to let it slide.
 
#32 ·
It's all pointless since most of the laws aren't enforced now. The only way for the politicians to keep their jobs is the pass more laws, doesn't matter that they won't be enforced. What they don't want is to be labeled as an ineffective Congress, challenge is they base it on the shear number of laws passed.
 
#33 ·
Bet on it you will see so called pro gun member's they will slowly and quietly start making statements like.
We can all agree... Reasonable gun owner understand no needs..... really all they are asking for is back round check (ignoring the rest of the hidden stuff in the bill).
I support hunting but no one needs 10 rounds to shot a Deer.... What would it hurt for us to give a little. .
I am a gun owner and I think...... These are often paid plants they are schooled on how to enter forums and slowly insert their liberal views. You see them all over read the posts
I know how they work our union trains many of them, they are adding more now to work on the gun control issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#34 ·
Bet on it you will see so called pro gun member's they will slowly and quietly start making statements like.
We can all agree... Reasonable gun owner understand no needs..... (snip).
Exactly. It is all part of what is called, "controlling the narrative". It is akin to attempting to relabel gun control, "common sense gun safety legislation". To put it bluntly, new speak. The idea is the same as why laugh tracks are used on sitcoms, to make the reader / viewer think that they are not alone (or are alone if they are in opposition). It is the same tactic as is used in talk radio when things are deliberately phrased like, "everyone knows", and the use of the either (your with us), or (your one of them).
 
#35 ·
I think its about time the residents of this country begin to LOUDLY extricate the blood/freedom suckers who currently govern our nation.
Start pushing people to vote the right way, and get rid of these leeches of society.

Everyone of my friends and family, save for a BIL and my sister feel the same way I do, and they vote predominately to the left as he is very pro union, which, if I was a member of a union this would be higher on the list of priorities than trying to get someone elected solely because they say they are for the working man
 
#37 ·
I think its about time the residents of this country begin to LOUDLY extricate the blood/freedom suckers who currently govern our nation.
Start pushing people to vote the right way, and get rid of these leeches of society.

Everyone of my friends and family, save for a BIL and my sister feel the same way I do, and they vote predominately to the left as he is very pro union, which, if I was a member of a union this would be lower on the list of priorities than trying to get someone elected solely because they say they are for the working man
Again, keeping their pension or their high rate paychecks all to feed a flawed "enforcement" system is above civil liberties... Sad!
 
#36 ·
It is time to get back on the phones and give them an ear full!!!

This story says exactly what we already know: The only thing thing have fear of, over even God, is the desire to be "re-elected"! That is simply putting yourself before others!

So make it clear under no uncertain terms it will not be stood for if they vote for this crap!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top