Biden to announce gun control by Executive Order this week

[Swordsmyth]

He knows it won't hold up in court, which is what makes this 44DD chess because Biden actually supports gun rights but he can't come out and say it so he supports them by passing illegal and unconstitutional executive orders.

LOL
Trump did lots of things to prove he was pro-gun.
Biden has done, is doing, and promises to do many things that prove he is anti-gun.
Trump kept the RINOs from caving and passing gun control legislation, Biden is trying to bypass the opposition in Congress that is preventing legislation because they are out of power and have to look good if they want the majority again.
Trump gambled that his judges would kill the ban of a trivial gimmick, Biden is virtue signalling to his base while making a risk free gamble that if executive bans are upheld he will impose serious gun control with this just being the start.

 

[Joe McCarthy]

No, there is another, better option.

Nullification and interposition at the state level.

It is already being done. A lot of states and counties have already passed legislation which declares any EO regarding gun control will be declared null and void. And any federal agents trying to enforce that order will be arrested and imprisoned. Now, the only thing they need to do is to expand that legislation to acts passed by Congress as well.

 

[TheCount]

LOL
Trump did lots of things to prove he was pro-gun.
Biden has done, is doing, and promises to do many things that prove he is anti-gun.
Trump kept the RINOs from caving and passing gun control legislation, Biden is trying to bypass the opposition in Congress that is preventing legislation because they are out of power and have to look good if they want the majority again.
Trump gambled that his judges would kill the ban of a trivial gimmick, Biden is virtue signalling to his base while making a risk free gamble that if executive bans are upheld he will impose serious gun control with this just being the start.

 

[TheTexan]

No, there is another, better option.

Nullification and interposition at the state level.

Nullification of any significance, will always lead to war. Or secession.

 

[Matt Collins]

Nullification of any significance, will always lead to war. Or secession.

Historically that has not been true.

 

[TheTexan]

Historically that has not been true.

Historically the only nullification of any significance did indeed lead to a civil war.

Legalizing marijuana, is not a significant nullification in that, noone outside of that state really cares if they do or dont.

 

[TheTexan]

Consider a thought experiment Matt:

1) Whole nation bans firearms
2) Texas then nullifies the ban and allows military firearms of all kinds to be sold at gas stations (RPG's, fully automatic weapons, C4, everything the 2A is intended to protect)

Then, a month later, a nursing home in California with 75 grandmas gets blown up in a C4 terrorist explosion. Or a hospital in NY gets hit by a RPG in a gang fight.

What do you think would happen next?
1) The Federal Government shrugs its shoulders and says "well, Texas nullified it, there's nothing we can do", or
2) The Federal Government demands Texas comply with federal law immediately with the threat of Federal military force behind it

 

[Matt Collins]

Historically the only nullification of any significance did indeed lead to a civil war.

Legalizing marijuana, is not a significant nullification in that, noone outside of that state really cares if they do or dont.

You should read up on the KY and VA resolutions and the Fugitive Slave Act. Tom Woods has written and spoken extensively about this.

 

[Matt Collins]

Consider a thought experiment Matt:

1) Whole nation bans firearms

Will not happen.

2) Texas then nullifies the ban and allows military firearms of all kinds to be sold at gas stations (RPG's, fully automatic weapons, C4, everything the 2A is intended to protect)

Then, a month later, a nursing home in California with 75 grandmas gets blown up in a C4 terrorist explosion. Or a hospital in NY gets hit by a RPG in a gang fight.

What do you think would happen next?
1) The Federal Government shrugs its shoulders and says "well, Texas nullified it, there's nothing we can do", or
2) The Federal Government demands Texas comply with federal law immediately with the threat of Federal military force behind it

The Feds do not like conflict, usually because it is embarrassing for them, it causes them to lose public support, and they usually just don't have the resources to enforce such nonsense without state government help.

 

[TheTexan]

The Feds do not like conflict, usually because it is embarrassing for them, it causes them to lose public support, and they usually just don't have the resources to enforce such nonsense without state government help.

Sure, with weed legalization and stuff like that they'll let it slide. Same with nullifying things like the rubber band ban. Doesn't really matter.

As soon as states start nullifying things that do matter, the threat of force from federal government becomes real & immediate. This is proven by history.

 

[Matt Collins]

Biden just announced his gun control agenda:




1. Ghost guns – regulate them under the GCA and serialize the 80 percent lowers. A proposed rule will be issued by the ATF within 30 days.



2. Create an annual report from DOJ on firearms trafficking.



3. Pistols with stabilizing braces to be treated as NFA items. A proposed rule will be issued by the ATF within 60 days.


4. Make it easier for states to adopt Red Flag Gun Confiscation laws. He also tied Red Flag to VAWA. “I want to see a Natl. Red Flag”



5. Ordering DOJ to publish a statement on how states can develop Red Flag laws.




6. Expanding the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative (aka Project Gestapo).




7. Nominating David Chipman, hardcore gun-grabber, to serve as ATF Director.



He concluded by calling on Senate to pass Universal Gun Reg bill, Charleston “loophole bill”, and reauthorize VAWA (mentioned “boyfriend” loophole). Also called on Congress to ban magazines, so-called assault weapons, and make gun manufactures liable for mass shootings.

 

[Sammy]

He knows it won't hold up in court, which is what makes this 44DD chess because Biden actually supports gun rights but he can't come out and say it so he supports them by passing illegal and unconstitutional executive orders.

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

 

[TheCount]

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

Yes. I'm mocking certain posters' arguments as to why Trump's gun control was good, while Biden's is bad.

 

[Sammy]

Yes. I'm mocking certain posters' arguments as to why Trump's gun control was good, while Biden's is bad.

Who supported Trump's gun control policies in this forum?

 

[TheCount]

Who supported Trump's gun control policies in this forum?

You don't have to scroll up far:

LOL
Trump did lots of things to prove he was pro-gun.
Biden has done, is doing, and promises to do many things that prove he is anti-gun.
Trump kept the RINOs from caving and passing gun control legislation, Biden is trying to bypass the opposition in Congress that is preventing legislation because they are out of power and have to look good if they want the majority again.
Trump gambled that his judges would kill the ban of a trivial gimmick, Biden is virtue signalling to his base while making a risk free gamble that if executive bans are upheld he will impose serious gun control with this just being the start.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Once again, Biden is a fucking madman.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You don't have to scroll up far:

That's not support and you know it isn't.

I said at the time Trump houldn't have done it and I have never said it was the thing he should have done.
Explanation is not support.

 

[TheTexan]

That's not support and you know it isn't.

I said at the time Trump houldn't have done it and I have never said it was the thing he should have done.
Explanation is not support.

You do not support it yet you are satisfied with the outcome?

 

[dannno]

You do not support it yet you are satisfied with the outcome?

Compared to what? We don't know how things would have turned out the other way.

 

[TheTexan]

Compared to what? We don't know how things would have turned out the other way.

It's pretty easy to see how things would have turned out the other way. If Trump hadn't tarnished the 2A, then Trump wouldn't have tarnished the 2A. Which itself is a good enough reason not to tarnish the 2A.

With that said, it's also extremely unlikely that any gun legislation would have gotten past his veto.

So in reality, if Trump hadn't issued an EO that expanded powers and tarnished the 2A, it's not like "worse laws" would have been passed.