Dems pushing gun licensing & registration

[Doc Safari]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-house-senate/

Democrats in the House and Senate are pushing firearm licensing and registration requirements.
The push is contained in legislation titled, “Blair Holt Firearm Owner Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2018.” It is being sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).

The text of the legislation says, “To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.” The phrase “certain firearms” refers to “a handgun; or a semiautomatic rifle that is capable of accepting a detachable ammunition feeding device.”

The legislation defines and “ammunition feeding device” as a device “capable of being detached from a semiautomatic rifle; and has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

In order to legally possess semiautomatic handguns or rifles a citizen would have to possess a “firearm owner license” or a “state firearm license.”

My take: they will never ever, ever, ever, EVER give up. So we can't either. Let's stop fighting defensive battles. We need to push for repeal of some of the laws already on the books: NFA, GCA '68, section 922(r).....

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So Tammy, you want Illinois FOID laws national? How many kids are you going to kill with your plan that takes the failed gun control scheme that gave us Chicago's near genocidal rates of black murders to the national level? Why do you continue to foist the failed policies that lead to more dead kids rather than do something that would actually save lives? Is your virtue signaling to your peers more important than actually stopping violence---

--- was never said by any MSM reporter or interviewer.

The blood is on their hands, and all over the checks they get from Soros.

[Averageman]

You know this is getting to the point of being sickening to me.
I can't believe that no matter how much evidence to the contrary is delivered, the Left still pushes disarmament.
I'm wondering how many men with guns guard Soros, Clinton and Pelosi and why are there lives more valuable than the average Citizens?

[Doc Safari]

I can't believe that no matter how much evidence to the contrary is delivered, the Left still pushes disarmament.

That's because it's not about crime control; it's about PEOPLE control. We can't have an armed citizenry that might revolt if we screw them too badly.

[Circle_10]

Maybe we should hurry up and revolt before they finish screwing us than.

Oh, better add the disclaimer...
I in no way advocate the overthrow of the US government.

[grnamin]

Disarmament is for the benefit of the plutocracy, not the people.

[RetroRevolver77]

Can't have their tax slaves getting uppity now can they.

[Hank6046]

As a guy who now resides in southern Wisconsin I find it so difficult to find any reasoning in IL gun control logic. In the towns around where I live every gun store has been broken into by gangsters coming up from Chicago looking to steal guns. They can't see how blatantly moronic efforts like these are because they don't actually stop crime, only prevent people from protecting themselves from it.

[Moose-Knuckle]

My black semi-automatic long arms identify as non-binary pansexual matchlocks.

Modes of fire and fire rates are social constructs don't you know...

[Doc Safari]

My black semi-automatic long arms identify as non-binary pansexual matchlocks.

Modes of fire and fire rates are social constructs don't you know...

Then you'll find this interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...weapon-mirage/

Gun control activists long ago discovered that if they use the term “assault weapon” to describe a firearm, the vast majority of people reading or hearing such term, will picture in their mind a rifle capable of fully automatic fire; this despite the fact that private possession of fully automatic firearms has been essentially unlawful for more than eight decades.

Relentless use of the term “assault weapon” to color and, in many respects, define the gun control debate over the past three decades, has served the movement well. It greatly facilitates debate that otherwise would force voters and legislators alike to actually understand that there in fact is a significant difference between civilian, semi-automatic versions of military rifles, and those used by the military and law enforcement that may look the same but possess the ability to fire in full automatic mode.

Keeping the debate focused on the false narrative that “assault rifles” have no purpose other than mass murder, makes it easy to skip over the facts that rifles such as the civilian AR-15 often are used in legitimate rifle competition and for hunting. This is because the rifle is extremely accurate. Such rifles also have been used effectively for home defense, as was established as early as 1995 during House Judiciary Committee hearings in which I participated.

So if gun bans and buy-backs don’t serve to reduce crime and enhance public safety, what purpose do they serve? Simple. Such proposals serve as talking points for those politicians whose thirst for control remains focused on the one aspect of American society that has served as a bedrock of individual liberty since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 – the right to keep and bear arms.

My take: I have to get back to my basic premise on all these things: it's about the gun grabbers RAISING MONEY more than anything else. Yes, there are hardcore leftists that would love to see a gun confiscation, but the dirty little secret is that even they know that's impossible in a country where guns already outnumber people. As long as they can keep scaring the people into donating their ducats to get "assault weapons" banned, or handguns registered, or some other such nonsense, they know those things will never actually do anything to make us safer, nor will they likely pass into law without creating a huge and very organized backlash.