Rattler

It’s just a mask. It’s just six feet. It’s just two weeks. It’s just non-essential businesses. It’s just non-essential workers. It’s just a bar. It’s just a restaurant. It’s just to keep from overwhelming the hospitals. It’s just until the cases go down. It’s just to flatten the curve. It’s just a few inmates. It’s just to keep others from being scared. It’s just for a few more weeks. It’s just church. You could still pray. It’s just prayer. It’s just until we get a vaccine. It’s just a bracelet. It’s just an app. It’s just for tracing. It’s just to let people know you’re safe to be around. It’s just to let others know who you’ve been in contact with. It’s just a few more months. It’s just some more inmates. It’s just a video. It’s just a post. It’s just an email account. It’s just for protecting others from hate speech. It’s just for protecting others from hurt feelings. It’s just a large gathering but for protests. It’s just a few violent protests. It’s just a little micro chip. It’s just a blood test. It’s just a test. It’s just a scan. It’s just for medical information. It’s just to store a vaccination certificate. It’s just like a credit card. It’s just a few places that don’t take cash. It’s just so you can travel. It’s just so you can get your driver’s license. It’s just so you can vote. It’s just mail-in voting. It’s just a few more years. It’s just a statue. It’s just a monument. It’s just a building. It’s just a song. It’s just a lyric. It’s just an anthem. It’s just a few words. It’s just a piece of paper. It’s just a book. It’s just a movie. It’s just a TV show. It’s just a cartoon character. It’s just a piece of cloth. It’s just a flag. It’s just a dog at a protest. It’s just a religion. It’s just a holiday. It's just your guns. It's just the police. It's just the military It's just your freedoms....gone forever. And "It's just" the way they planned it. IMO ANYWAY.

Is he? Bill de Blasio; born Warren Wilhelm Jr.; May 8, 1961) is an American politician who has served as the 109th mayor of New York City since 2014. His mother's parents were Italian immigrants; his father is of German ancestry.

Not only will UBC not work to lower crime, it will increase it. Anytime you ban anything there is a demand for, you create an illegal black market where lots of money can be made. When criminals are looking at lots of money, they kill anyone that gets in their way. Drugs are a perfect example, as was prohibition. Stealing guns will be the first step for criminals, who will move on to smuggling and eventually manufacturing. The only people who will be disarmed will be those left at the mercy of criminals. Not one single politician or elitist calling for UBC has any intention of giving up the armed security they surround themselves with. They see themselves as above the law and the masses as the great unwashed. BTW, UBC will not allow you to leave your gun with your wife to protect herself when you are away for any length of time. That will be an illegal transfer. She will need her own gun registered to her. If she shoots anyone with your gun, she will be prosecuted for being in possession of an illegal firearm and shooting someone with it. That requires prison time under the law. In NY people have already been sent to jail for shooting a home invaded with a firearm they didn't own. To be very frank, supporting UBC is supporting your own oppression. Being too stubborn to see the light in spite of all the warnings, is akin to being one of the pigs that follows the farmer because he feeds them, while not believing he will one day slaughter them.

LOL! Damn you are too close minded to figure it out. You can"t envision any way what you are looking at is legal? Talk about a hater. All the pertinent info will be forth coming in due time for those who are interested. At that time you will be eating your presumptuous words and wiping the egg off your face. Meanwhile, I'll just ignore you.

Then you're even dumber than you look.

You're a fool Trail. I already addressed that and it's obvious you can't comprehend what I wrote. I doubt you are so free with your derogatory pronouncements when your adversary is within arms reach.

Is what Kaepernick does at public events a stupid thing to do too?

NICS stands for National Instant Check System. It was put in place to stop intentional delays in processing paperwork. UBC already has a clause allowing the govt to delay NICS approvals for as long as it deems necessary. That could mean forever. Support UBC at your own peril.

One thing people need to start realizing is the government's desire to eliminate the 2nd A has nothing to do with crime.

For all of you outdoor lawyers who are jumping to conclusions here, there is nothing illegal illustrated in that trail cam pic. I'm not ready to say why that is the case, but I can assure you NY DEC would not have an issue with it. All I will say is those deer are on my land and the mineral block they are enjoying isn't illegal on that land. I'll clarify it for all concerned when the time comes. Until then, you can have fun guessing what I'm talking about.

UBC support only requires one question. Do you trust the government? The answer most informed people will say is "NO!" Then there is no reason to support expanding the government's power to ruin your life.

UBC is a Trojan Horse that will allow the govt to prosecute anyone in possession of a firearm that isn't registered, hasn't been transferred through an FFL, or doesn't have a serial number. (Many old rifles and shotguns weren't made with them stamped on the gun) Once you must do a NICS check for any transfer of any firearm, the government can start to increase the reasons for denial, like hateful posts on social media sites, (and the govt gets to say what hate is) which has already been suggested. A failed NICS check, for any government created reason, can be used to confiscate all your existing firearms, since they are all registered now so UBC can work properly. Anyone can "Red Flag" you when they pass that law too and then all of your guns are taken and NICS will deny you buying any. To put it in simple terms, giving the govt the power to make your 2nd A right a privilege, would be a very foolish thing to do. This is a perfect example of how the govt is not your friend.

Perhaps that is because you have not investigated the damage to gun rights it will do. While most Americans believe all firearm purchasers should be qualified, there's a very legitimate concern that implementing "enhanced" background checks for any firearm transfer under any circumstance will lead to a national firearm registry — which will ultimately lead to confiscation. Trump could have taken an easy pass on this debate after Beto O'Rourke used the Demo debate stage to expose the Left's long-term gun-confiscation objective. When asked, "Are you proposing taking away their guns and how would this work?" O'Rourke responded, "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!" From there, it's not much of a leap for statists to begin the incremental ban on most firearms. Even congressional Democrats are furious at O'Rourke for letting the mask slip and exposing their confiscation goals. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went into full damage-control mode, deceptively declaring, "I don't know of any other Democrat who agrees with Beto O'Rourke." While Chuck might not, I know plenty of them. Democrat insistence on "universal background checks" isn't going away. They know it has popular support across party lines. That support isn't likely to be reflected in ballot measures because media polling doesn't reflect full consideration of the implications. Other reputable polls indicate that support for gun-control measures in general is trending downward. For that reason, it's important to better understand concerns about, and objections to, broader FBI background checks and firearms transfers, and the very real risk that data from such checks could be used to create a national gun registry — if such an "off the books" registry isn't already being maintained. But before tackling that serious concern, here are two observations. First, this is my personal position on buying and selling a firearm: Every firearm I've acquired has been through a dealer, which is to say those purchases have been subject to background checks. I have never sold or transferred a firearm to anyone other than a dealer, a law-enforcement officer, or someone known to me who has an active firearm carry permit or is active-duty military. In other words, every firearm I've owned has been vetted, and every firearm I've sold or given away has been to a qualified recipient. Having been a uniformed patrolman at the start of my career, these are my personal standards for firearm transactions. (If Beto has access to some rogue registry and wants to come confiscate my firearms, I look forward to meeting him.) Second, about the so-called "gun-show loophole": As 2A advocates often explain, there is no legal loophole regarding sales by licensed dealers at such events. Those sales are subject to the same background checks as any other retail sale by a dealer holding a federal firearms license (FFL). But an estimated 15-20% of firearm transactions at these venues are between individuals and are thus not currently subject to any federal background checks — unless those take place in one of the 21 states that have regulations regarding handgun purchases at gun shows. For example, I recently became aware that two 16-year-olds and an 18-year-old purchased three AR-15 pistols from a table vendor at a gun show. Most vendors are FFL dealers, but transactions by vendors who aren't dealers, and other sellers connecting with buyers at those venues, bypass background checks. Would broader federal regulations regarding background checks on individual sales stop such transactions? At best, these might create an obstacle that will simply send some of these transactions underground. Again, only law-abiding citizens obey the law. Now, regarding concern that implementing enhanced background checks for any firearm transfer under any circumstance will lead to a national firearm registry: That concern is completely justified. If you haven't purchased a firearm from an FFL dealer, here is the process: Before a firearm can be transferred to the buyer, that buyer must complete ATF Form 4473. That Form 4473 is then uploaded through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was established by Congress under P.L. 110–180. In what is now an instant check in most cases, Form 4473 information is compared to an FBI database to determine if the buyer is eligible to make that purchase. A dealer can also query the NICS system to determine if a firearm has been stolen. (For the record, in 2017, the NICS background check denied transfer to 112,000 individuals, most of whom submitted false information, though fewer than 50 of those individuals have been prosecuted.) So, the question that should be of concern to all firearm purchasers is: What happens to the Form 4473 information once the purchase has been cleared? There are a number of federal laws that make a permanent federal registry of Form 4473 data unlawful, mandating that the federal agency destroy the Form 4473 information once the background check is complete. I'll include these provisions in detail below because they're difficult to find, and because many consumers and even dealers aren't aware of these specific legal prohibitions. Yet even though such a registry would violate the law, given the abject disregard for Rule of Law demonstrated by FBI leadership under former Director James Comey and under former President Barack Obama, concerns about such lawlessness are completely legitimate. And they're yet another reason that President Trump could cite as justification for exiting the gun-registration debate. It relates specifically to NICS, Section 511 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, 18 U.S.C. 922 note and Public Law 112–55; 125 Stat. 632. The following provision prohibits the use of NICS to compile a registry of people who acquired firearms by requiring the system to destroy records on approved transfers within 24 hours: However, FFL dealers are required to maintain Form 4473s in their records as part of their licensing requirement, in order to track firearms used in the commission of crimes. The process of tracking such weapons is that the serial number is provided to the manufacturer, which then can advise what FFL dealer purchased that firearm for resale. The FFL dealer is then required to reveal to whom the firearm was sold. A different provision of the same act (P.L. 112-55) also prohibits the use of FFL records (including A&D books and the Form 4473 records FFLs are required to send to the ATF when they discontinue doing business) for compilation of a firearm registry: This provision of the Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. § 926) prohibits regulations from being written that would require the compilation of a firearms registry from records that FFLs are required to keep: Also of interest, there are even restrictions under (P.L. 111-148) pertaining to Barack Obama's so-called "Affordable Care Act" that are designed to prevent the compilation of firearm registries from information collected by insurance companies and healthcare providers. The relevant section is "Protection of Second Amendment Rights." Congress would have to enact laws to substantively change any of these restrictions. That they can do, though such changes would then be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court as a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court, for the moment, is marginally in the hands of jurists who abide by their oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution. Notably, according to Second Amendment scholar Dave Hardy, "There is no [current] SCOTUS ruling that would apply." So where does the background-check debate stand? The Trump administration's outline for enhanced background checks notes, "Consistent with the Manchin-Toomey draft legislation, a background-check requirement would be extended to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows. Background checks would be conducted either through a [Federal Firearm Licensee] or through a newly-created class of licensed transfer agents." This comes perilously close to universal background checks. However, Trump's deputy press secretary, Hogan Gidley, says the president has not approved the proposal: "Not even close." Well, I certainly hope not. So, here are a couple of closing thoughts: First, concerns about background checks and a national gun registry are fully justified. In fact, it is those concerns that drive many firearm purchasers to seek legal but "un-papered" transactions, including those at gun shows. In a National Institute of Justice white paper, "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies," written by Obama's then-Deputy Director Greg Ridgeway, he notes in the "Universal Background Checks" section that the effectiveness of such checks "depends on ... requiring gun registration." He also referenced a "nationwide registration and licensing program," and claimed that "gun registration aims to 1) increase owner responsibility by directly connecting an owner with a gun, [and] 2) improve law enforcement's ability to retrieve guns from owners prohibited from possessing firearms." I mention this NIJ report because, ultimately, full firearms registration is what Democrats are after, and we can thus thank O'Rourke for his inadvertent reminder. Second, regarding the statutory language prohibiting the retention of Form 4473 data before it's destroyed, I believe this prohibition as currently written is insufficient. Any negotiation about background checks should include much stronger statutory regulations against the existence or development of a national firearms registry — and outline the heavy penalties for anyone involved in the creation of such a database. Third, any negotiation about background checks should include national reciprocity for gun permit holders and, moreover, recognition of such permit holders as pre-qualified firearm purchasers. Far more people are killed by automobiles each year than by firearms, but state driver's licenses have reciprocity throughout the nation. The same should be true for right-to-carry licenses, which are now held by 8% of Americans. And finally, broader background checks may create a speed bump in the acquisition of firearms by unqualified purchasers, but given that only law-abiding sellers and law-abiding buyers comply with the law, it will be a small speed bump at best. What's ultimately at risk here is the First Civil Right of law-abiding Americans: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." It is evident that our nation has reached the pinnacle of complacent ignorance when some citizens demand the revocation of the one right, the Second Amendment, that assures the security and perpetuation of all others. Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776 Mark Alexander

You still don't get it. It has had some positive results and it has NOT HAD ANY NEGATIVE RESULTS. Let's see if the government's vaccine can say that when they start using it without any proven results.

Where are you getting that from?

An interesting side benefit of the recent surge in firearm purchases in the US, is the surge in Pittman Robertson funds that comes with it, (11% tax on all firearms, including handguns, ammo and archery sales) which is dedicated to wildlife conservation in this country, in spite of Democrat attempts to raid the fund.

Funny you should bring that up, because it's the Progressives that are advocating being on your knees, and their followers are doing it without question. Seems to me they are the one's swallowing everything they are told to swallow.