2020 Democratic Party Platform Declares Total War on Second Amendment Rights

[Rattler]

If you support Democrats, this is what you want.  This is why gun owners can not respect anything you say.

Released July 21, the draft platform contains the following passage:

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Read the article for more unconstitutional infringements they want.

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20200803/2020-democratic-party-platform-declares-total-war-on-second-amendment-rights?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ila_alert

[Rattler]

The big difference between Progressives and Conservatives is, Progressives like to look to the things the government "promises" to do FOR them, while Conservatives are aware of what the government plans to do TO them.

[airedale]

And that is just the tip of the iceberg!

Al

[Delete]

I know you'll crucify me, but there seems to be some common sense stuff in there in my opinion. I don't know how I feel about licensing, and though it doesn't affect me, I don't agree with the assault/magazine restrictions, and I don't agree with manufacturers being held responsible. However, UBC and keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people are okay in my book. Sorry if you disagree with me, but that just where I stand.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Revenant

[airedale]

There are already federal and state laws on the books to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people and those laws have been around for years. Dangerous people do not follow the law and acquire their weapons legally! Common sense is if these these laws were actually strictly enforced there would not be the problems there are. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by airedale

[Delete]

6 minutes ago, airedale said:

There are already federal and state laws on the books to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people and those laws have been around for years. Dangerous people do not follow the law and acquire their weapons legally! Common sense is if these these laws were actually strictly enforced there would not be the problems there are. 

Fair point, but still doesn't change that I agree with parts of the platform...

By the way, totally off topic, but I love that you have Airedales. My parents raise Wire Fox Terriers, and also have an Airedale, Brody. He is a great dog, and I will probably end up with one someday. 

The guy that my parents purchased their first male wire fox from had a pair of wire foxes and a pair of Airedales. He said they killed more coyotes than you would believe. The wire foxes would find and fight them, and the Airedales would come in and kill them. Supposedly it was something to witness...

Edited August 4, 2020 by Revenant

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, Revenant said:

Fair point, but still doesn't change that I agree with parts of the platform...

just to clarify. You are for passing more laws even though there are already laws on the books to keep the weapons out of the hands of people that are convicted felons and have actions like restraining orders against them?

[Delete]

10 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

just to clarify. You are for passing more laws even though there are already laws on the books to keep the weapons out of the hands of people that are convicted felons and have actions like restraining orders against them?

I support Universal Background Checks and laws that prevent violent offenders from owning firearms. I don't know if that qualifies as what you are trying to qualify, but that is what I support.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

8 minutes ago, Revenant said:

I support Universal Background Checks and laws that prevent violent offenders from owning firearms. I don't know if that qualifies as what you are trying to qualify, but that is what I support.

the Democrats want NEW laws. What background checks aren't done that you wish were and what violent offenders can currently get firearms that you wish to exclude?

[Delete]

Currently only 13 states require background checks for all firearm sales. My home state of Illinois has no such requirement, and I have witnessed firsthand folks that I know should not possess a firearm purchasing them from law-abiding gun owners. If UBC were passed, those sales would have been required to go through a transfer process, which would have prevented that sale. 

[airedale]

6 minutes ago, Revenant said:

If UBC were passed, those sales would have been required to go through a transfer process, which would have prevented that sale.

One more time, Universal background check or not the folks that are looking to do no good with a firearm are not law abiding citizens. These thugs are not going to try and purchase a firearm where one has to pass a universal background check. The black market is alive and well and that is where they get their guns if they want one. That is where the crack down needs to be with prosecution and sentence penalties severe enough to make these dirtbag gun runners think twice about getting into the firearms business. Start throwing away the key!

[Delete]

8 minutes ago, airedale said:

One more time, Universal background check or not the folks that are looking to do no good with a firearm are not law abiding citizens. These thugs are not going to try and purchase a firearm where one has to pass a universal background check. The black market is alive and well and that is where they get their guns if they want one. That is where the crack down needs to be with prosecution and sentence penalties severe enough to make these dirtbag gun runners think twice about getting into the firearms business. Start throwing away the key!

I'm not going to disagree with you, those illegal purchases need to be enforced. Who does that fall to? Law enforcement, ATF, judges, all of the above? I don't have an answer to that. 

As I said before, I have witnessed individuals who were not allowed to own firearms purchase firearms from law-abiding gun owners with no issue. I used to attend a monthly swap-meet "Geff Trade Days" and saw a widely know convicted child abuser purchase a handgun from an unknowing (at least I hope) seller. The guy purchased a 9mm and ammunition and walked off down the road. Had Illinois required a background check, that sale would have never happened. Could he still purchase a firearm from the black market, sure, but would it be more difficult, I would imagine so. In my opinion, it's not that big of a deal, and it doesn't hurt anything to help keep guns only in the hands of the good guys.  

I should say, I agree with you on sentencing for illegal gun runners. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Revenant

[Culvercreek hunt club]

27 minutes ago, Revenant said:

Currently only 13 states require background checks for all firearm sales. My home state of Illinois has no such requirement, and I have witnessed firsthand folks that I know should not possess a firearm purchasing them from law-abiding gun owners. If UBC were passed, those sales would have been required to go through a transfer process, which would have prevented that sale. 

That only works for guns that were purchased new after such a law. there are 10's of millions of guns with no paper on the and legally owned. I wouldn't oppose that but it would stop very little. My concern over any gun law is what are the results going to be weighed against the infringement. The left seems to be bent on passing laws "gun control" for the sake of passing laws and when they don't work it is justification for trying to pass more. 

[Delete]

Not necessarily, if a Background Check were required for all transfers, then it would cover any private sales as well. Would it make it more difficult to buy/sell a gun, sure, but not that much. We're kind of already used to that in NY. Being someone who owns all of my guns legally, I have no worries about selling a gun, and if I decided to sell one, but found out that the potential buyer was not allowed to own it, I would be thankful that my gun didn't end up in the wrong hands. 

You're points are perfectly valid, and I really can't argue them, especially the infringement point. However, it doesn't change my support for UBC.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Revenant

[ADK Native]

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

That is the apparent thinking of gun control advocates who are unwilling or unable to understand that there are causes of gun violence that has nothing to do with gun ownership.

Serious problem solving if applied to gun violence would consider “root causes” or the “common denominators” associated with the violent use of firearms.  Those “root causes” or the “common denominators” are related to illegal drugs, welfare programs that has enable the proliferation of single mother families whose children are at higher risk for being criminals or victims of crime, failed public school disciplinary methods and crime gangs supported by the aforementioned social ills.

Still the gun control advocacy seems to be believers in the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[Enigma]

21 hours ago, Revenant said:

Currently only 13 states require background checks for all firearm sales. My home state of Illinois has no such requirement, and I have witnessed firsthand folks that I know should not possess a firearm purchasing them from law-abiding gun owners. If UBC were passed, those sales would have been required to go through a transfer process, which would have prevented that sale. 

Assuming these transactions you witnessed occurred in Illinois, and at the time Illinois did not have UBC, you witnessed a completely legal act between consenting adults under then current law correct? 

But somehow you "know" (knew) that one of the individuals "should" not possess a firearm. How did you "know"? Did this person have his rap sheet sewn on his shirt? Was he carrying a sign? Are you his probation officer? Was his picture in the paper? Please tell us and present hard evidence as to how you "knew" that this person was prohibited from owning a firearm.

I guess you're entitled to your opinion as to if the person "should" be allowed to own firearms but soooooo many people "know" stuff that ends up being complete crap when pressed to provide proof.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Enigma

[Enigma]

21 hours ago, Revenant said:

As I said before, I have witnessed individuals who were not allowed to own firearms purchase firearms from law-abiding gun owners with no issue. I used to attend a monthly swap-meet "Geff Trade Days" and saw a widely know convicted child abuser purchase a handgun from an unknowing (at least I hope) seller. The guy purchased a 9mm and ammunition and walked off down the road. Had Illinois required a background check, that sale would have never happened. Could he still purchase a firearm from the black market, sure, but would it be more difficult, I would imagine so. In my opinion, it's not that big of a deal, and it doesn't hurt anything to help keep guns only in the hands of the good guys.  

I should say, I agree with you on sentencing for illegal gun runners. 

Once again, how did you "know" these individuals were "not allowed" to own firearms? Oh wait, because it was "widely know (sic)". This is an excellent example of group think. 

So you "saw" the sale? From where? 10ft? 25 ft? Standing beside? Were you part of the conversation? And did you ask to see this "convicted child abuser's" official paper's prohibiting his possession? Were you in court the day he was sentenced? 

Most of all, if, in your opinion, this transaction and potential threat to public safety was sooo ominous, why didn't you say or do anything to stop it or prevent its completion?!?! Did you call the police? Notify the event organizers? Pull the seller aside and tell him what you "knew"? No.

Were there no other "good guys" at this event that you could have immediately told and then helped you track down those illegally possessed guns and get them to safety?  I guess not.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Enigma

[Delete]

35 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Once again, how did you "know" these individuals were "not allowed" to own firearms? Oh wait, because it was "widely know (sic)". This is an excellent example of group think. 

So you "saw" the sale? From where? 10ft? 25 ft? Standing beside? Were you part of the conversation? And did you ask to see this "convicted child abuser's" official paper's prohibiting his possession? Were you in court the day he was sentenced? 

Most of all, if, in your opinion, this transaction and potential threat to public safety was sooo ominous, why didn't you say or do anything to stop it or prevent its completion?!?! Did you call the police? Notify the event organizers? Pull the seller aside and tell him what you "knew"? No.

Were there no other "good guys" at this event that you could have immediately told and then helped you track down those illegally possessed guns and get them to safety?  I guess not.

I’m sorry I don’t video proof of this for you, but I can assure you this did happen. 

I don’t know if you’ve ever visited Southeastern Illinois, but it is small, I mean, really small. If you fart in the grocery store it’s possible to make the 2nd page of the Albion newspaper. This individual was sent to prison (sorry I don’t know for how long) for dang near beating his son to death. The kid was a couple of years younger than my little brother. 

I apologize that I cannot draw you a picture to set the scene, but trade days is just a bunch of guys set up on their tailgates at the Geff coon club selling anything from guns to junk beagle dogs. I looked at the sellers stuff, including the gun that was purchased. As my dad and I were making a 2nd round, we saw the sale take place, and the said felon take his gun and walk off down the road. It’s possible that the seller didn’t know, the swap meet is in Wayne County, I, and the buyer were from Edwards County, the next county over. People came from all over as well, so I’m assuming he didn’t know. 

Actually, the guy ended up getting sent back to prison a couple of years later for shooting up his ex wife’s house with a .22. If you don’t believe me, it’s no skin off my nose. 

Could I have called the cops or stepped in, sure. At 19, I or my dad could have stepped in, but we didn’t. Call the cops? It would have taken about 45 minutes to get home and call (this was over 15 years ago). Contacted the event organizer? Haha, you have no idea what kind of event this is. Maybe one of the coon club members was up at the clubhouse selling biscuits and gravy, but they wouldn’t have done anything. 

Again, think what you wish, it doesn’t bother me. However, I stand where I stand in UBC. 

[9jNYstarkOH]

Be very carefully of wishing for universal background checks. As handing someone a gun to hold so you can cross a fence and then getting handed a gun so they can cross the fence can be two illegal transfers. It is a very slippery slope and will not be positive for sportsman and will be used against us.

[Rattler]

4 hours ago, Revenant said:

Again, think what you wish, it doesn’t bother me. However, I stand where I stand in UBC. 

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:

SEC. 511. Hereafter, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used for ... any system to implement subsection 922(t) of Title 18, United States Code, that does not require and result in the destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law.

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:

No funds appropriated herein or hereafter shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees...

Hereafter, no funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal identification code...

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:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

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

[Rattler]

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.

[Enigma]

4 hours ago, Revenant said:

I’m sorry I don’t video proof of this for you, but I can assure you this did happen. 

I don’t know if you’ve ever visited Southeastern Illinois, but it is small, I mean, really small. If you fart in the grocery store it’s possible to make the 2nd page of the Albion newspaper. This individual was sent to prison (sorry I don’t know for how long) for dang near beating his son to death. The kid was a couple of years younger than my little brother. 

I apologize that I cannot draw you a picture to set the scene, but trade days is just a bunch of guys set up on their tailgates at the Geff coon club selling anything from guns to junk beagle dogs. I looked at the sellers stuff, including the gun that was purchased. As my dad and I were making a 2nd round, we saw the sale take place, and the said felon take his gun and walk off down the road. It’s possible that the seller didn’t know, the swap meet is in Wayne County, I, and the buyer were from Edwards County, the next county over. People came from all over as well, so I’m assuming he didn’t know. 

Actually, the guy ended up getting sent back to prison a couple of years later for shooting up his ex wife’s house with a .22. If you don’t believe me, it’s no skin off my nose. 

Could I have called the cops or stepped in, sure. At 19, I or my dad could have stepped in, but we didn’t. Call the cops? It would have taken about 45 minutes to get home and call (this was over 15 years ago). Contacted the event organizer? Haha, you have no idea what kind of event this is. Maybe one of the coon club members was up at the clubhouse selling biscuits and gravy, but they wouldn’t have done anything. 

Again, think what you wish, it doesn’t bother me. However, I stand where I stand in UBC. 

There's no need to be sorry or apologize for anything. I wasn't trying to be combative but I can see how my post had that tone. It was poor form on my part to single out you and your experiences. 

I'm reminded of something Culver posted once. Something to the effect that "people have different perspectives" or as I think of it "life is a matter of perspective." We obviously have different perspectives on UBC and we'll just agree to disagree.

I just really think having the federal or state government overseeing the affairs at the Geff coon club get togethers just isn't going to go over well.

[Rattler]

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.

 

[squirrelwhisperer]

The dems don’t want anyone to have guns but the police and military. Guess what...the bad guys will still get them. I’m from Queens originally and knew a guy in the early 90’s from Brooklyn that could get you whatever you want...I’m talking hand grenades and the like. If he was still alive I’m sure I could still get anything from him I asked for...and I’m one of the good guys!!

Taking the guns out of the hands of the law abiding people because of the acts of the few is akin to banning all cars because of drunk driving accidents. 

People need to finally be held accountable for their own poor choices and stop blaming everyone else! 

[Rattler]

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