Pages


Friday, May 20, 2022

Dems’ new gun control bill: federal license needed to buy one gun, confiscation, 5-year limit on license

Senate Democrats introduced a strict new gun control bill on Thursday that would require all Americans to obtain a five-year federal firearm license before purchasing a single gun. The bill also authorizes the government to confiscate an individual’s guns if the license is revoked. 

The Federal Firearm Licensing Act would force Americans to undergo firearm safety training — including a written test and hands-on training — in order to receive a license. Gun buyers would also be required to complete a criminal background check, submit fingerprints and proof of identity, and be over the age of 21.
-Alemaster

30 comments:

  1. Fine. To test feasibility, set up a pilot program, say on the west side of Chicago. Get back to us with results.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Machine shop go whrrr...
    Nevermind all the cheaper methods.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They are just jumping up and down on that 'third rail' of politics... That they are putting this up now tells me they know they are done for in November.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I Will Not Comply!
    Repeat after me: I Will Not Comply!
    Remember to #EAT - Execute All Traitors

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is how rights are attacked: through licensing, which turns rights into revocable permissions.
    Imagine if you had to purchase a license to speak freely...or operate a website. Imagine further if that license contained limitations on what you could say -- limitations that could be revised unilaterally at any time by the federal government.
    We're nearing the "last hill."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I will send you a picture that sums up my response, better than words.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...and thus the reason for the spate of mass shootings in the last couple weeks. But, but, but, it's pure coinkidink that these types of mass shootings ALWAYS precede every new gun control push by the Demonrats. After all, they just have to have a fresh compelling argument for pushing this issue to fore time and again, even though it always fails.

    Course the one in Beefalo kinda failed because the perp is a mentally ill far left wingnut. They kinda screwed that one up.

    Then the Demonrats can do two things. Claim that "they tried" and blame the failure on Republicans. It's the same tired old up the gut play that they trot out administration after administration.

    F*ck You! Stronger message to follow.

    Nemo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: "...and thus the reason for the spate of mass shootings in the last couple weeks. But, but, but, it's pure coinkidink that these types of mass shootings ALWAYS precede every new gun control push by the Demonrats."

      Yeah, that's right... but anyone who dares question the narrative of the deep-state is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and thrown out of polite society. Well, it is no longer a "conspiracy theory" that the black-bag boys down at Langley or whatnot - are past masters of false-flag attacks. How many of these "rampages" by gun-toting maniacs are genuine, as opposed to false-flag ops staged by the men in the shadows? The timing of these incidents just before renewed pushes for gun control is way too coincidental to be mere chance.

      "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action" ~ Ian Fleming

      Delete
  8. I'll just have to say

    Ditto
    Patriots

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just theater by the usual suspects. No way they get anywhere close to 60 votes. Manchin said 3 days ago the only gun bill he would vote for is a revival of 2013's Manchin-Toomey background check bill. Pulling 11 Republicans to vote for this isn't going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I understand correctly, it would need to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

      That IS the process to repeal any Constitutional Amendment, isn't it?

      Delete
  10. I'd guess the value of existing guns just went up again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, they can suck my dick.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And another political ploy takes place. They have no expectation that this has a chance in hell of passing. It is just a way for the Democrats running for office again come November to be able to vote either for or against a gun control bill, depending on what type of constituency they represent.
    Like they say, if you don't know what to do, at least do something.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you want a thriving black market, this is exactly how you get one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democrats control the black market in the USA

      Delete
    2. Re: "If you want a thriving black market, this is exactly how you get one."

      Yes, that's precisely true and quite correct. None of the originators of this set of proposals has ever studied the failed history of prohibition movements, evidently, for if Booker et al. had done so they would know that they fail time and again.

      Why? Let us consider alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and early 1930s. In January 1919, the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed by Congress, followed some months later by the Volstead Act.

      At the stroke of a pen, the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages was outlawed. This did not, however, mean that the heretofore enormous market for such intoxicants and spirits disappeared overnight.

      It is a well-established law of economics that if a buyer and seller for a particular good or service exist, they will transact business in the marketplace in some manner.
      If not in the above-board, legal market, then in the underground economy and black market instead. The government can't change this fact to any appreciable degree; the best it can do is force a change in the venue in which said goods/services are exchanged, and make transacting such business less-convenient and more-costly.

      Any legislative ban on firearms would create the largest and most-profitable black market in history, one which would dwarf those for alcohol and narcotics and other illicit goods. And since the mere possession of a firearm would already be a crime, it is likely that such purchases would disregard NFA34 and subsequent laws governing the sale/possession of automatic weapons, SBRs, suppressors, etc. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the British say.

      This is the law of unintended consequences, which is always active in human affairs, whether we like it or not. Sometimes, it is better the devil you know than the one you do not. The would-be gun-banners ought to remember that fact.

      Delete
  14. No doubt this law will apply only to gentiles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Naa.....pretty sure us heebs will be part of it too.

      Good try though.

      Delete
  15. Criminals do not obey the law. repeat that fifty times.
    These attempts to attack an American citizens right to 'bear arms' always rile up the majority of voters to vote OUT Democrats. So ... ~ have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  16. They are kinda forgetting the whole "Shall not be infringed " part , this sounds infringy to me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Car crashes kill and injure far more people than guns do, so why arent ars blamed ? Almost all U.S. Politicians own guns. Why don’t they turn them in ? “OK for me, but Not for thee”.

      Delete
    2. Re: "Almost all U.S. Politicians own guns. Why don’t they turn them in ? “OK for me, but Not for thee."

      Many of the would-be banners of private firearms ownership themselves are protected by men with guns. Including the sponsors of the bills in question in Congress. From this we can infer that they are not against guns, per se, but just the fact that ordinary people can own them.

      A dispassionate reading of history shows that when one group of people attempts to disarm another group of people, it is often the intent of the former to persecute the latter, or even commit acts of terrorism and genocide against them.

      Delete
  17. Dudes, just look to Canada to see what yer Dems want.
    We have had these rules for years.
    Had a gun registry for a few years also, til our Cons got into power, but now the talk has returned to re-establish.
    Hand guns have been restricted since the 1930's.
    The dis-information chick was just another take on what is happening up here.
    It goes on and on, I see this rule in Canada today just to see it in the USA tomorrow.
    The cabal knows that they have to act now cuz the worm is starting to turn.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Car crashes kill far more than guns but the car is never blamed. Why is that ?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Something about BAB (Big Assed Bomba) or MOAB (Mother Of All Bombas) inserted into Da District of Kartoonistan comes to mind

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Demonrats are trying to steal at least part the momentum that the opposition (Note I did not say RINOS) has in the upcoming elections this fall. 31 Demonrats are NOT going to seek re-election in the house. The average the opposition party picks up is 29. The senate has 35 seats up for election. The republicans have to defend 21 and the demonrats have to defend 14. With Biden's popularity being in the shitter is not going to help them pick up seats. So the senate is the key. Although taking the house where ALL spending bills and Tax bills are supposed to originate could at least slow biden and his minions down. Abortion is not the election winning issue they need so they latch on to something so they are trying to get gun-control to be their central issue. Which after the 2020 riots not going to be winning issue

    ReplyDelete

I moderate my comments due to spam and trolls. No need to post the same comment multiple times if yours doesn't show right away..