Take the ATF out of the gun control business and put them on the border as a sheild against illegal invaders... That way they can stop shooting law-abiding citizens and their dogs and deal with actual criminals.. JD
"Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" is a chimera. (Something composed of items that have no logical connection.) It makes no sense. Just get rid of it. I don't know why he's sucking up to them but if we had a debate I'd annihilate him and I'm not even close to being the strongest voice on the subject. I wish I had a coupon I could share here for a free pack of Rolaids. Also, he should lay off the Brylcreem, it's so 50's. 😂 - Joely
DIdn't watch the video, did you? Or did everything he said just go right over your head? Like the part about abolishing the ATF doesn't abolish the laws that were voted on by Congress?
I didn't view the video. I disagree with the premise.
The ATF has, since the institution of the '69 gun control act, maintained an illegal gun control registry.
For this reason alone, they should be disbanded and all current and former living heads of the agency prosecuted for criminal conduct in defiance of Federal Law and the registry should be destroyed with neutral witnesses to ascertain that it was done.
Oh, the ATF would never maintain a gun control registry because they say they don't? Heads of Federal agencies never lie do they?
It's not a waste of your time. It's just that so many people have the attention span of a goldfish. They get caught up in the first thing they see and ignore everything else after. like my friends just down the road. When the election was stolen in 20 they said that Trump should just take it like a man and suck it up. If the leftists could have taken the presidency, they could then fuck with us. Of course all along the way they did, they had 4 years to devalue our currency, among other things. I could point out things that wouldn't have been done under Trump, and they'd agree that it would have been better. But then they'll add in the next breath that Trump should have kept his mouth shut. Some people have to burn their pecker on the stove to learn that it's hot. In spite of all the other evidence to confirm it.
I'd just watched it up to the first ad but I went back and watched enough of the rest of it to see that he's right. It's like a C++ class you have to dismantle before you dispose of it because the sharp parts that lurk could create havoc. Thanks for the nudge. I guess patience isn't one of my great traits. - Joely
My heart burn is the definition of antique fire arms. Yes I know this was part of a passed law, however defining a rifle made on December 31, 1898 an antique, but an exact duplicate made seven days later a modern weapon with all the attached paperwork is the definition of ridiculous. A single shot 22 made at any time does not equate to a Barrett 50 caliber semi auto yet the paper work is the same. The rules have been so twisted over time that they need to be tossed and totally rewritten to some level of sanity. Rant over.
OK, it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea whose time has come. $40 Trillion national debt coming up by the 2026 midterms. It's time to cut cut cut, like Javier Milei and his chainsaw did for Argentina.
Well, it's a good point that getting rid of the agency doesn't get rid of the laws. But who cares, if it's impossible to enforce those laws?
I don't think there's much point to officially getting rid of the law. Label it ALL as blatantly unconstitutional, stop enforcing all of it, and THEN worry about correcting the bookkeeping later. You don't need an enforcement agency for laws that shouldn't/can't be enforced.
And it's entirely legal to do so - unless you believe that SCOTUS is the ONLY and FINAL arbiter of what's constitutional and what isn't, which position I regard as silly and uninformed. Look at the nullification of the fugitive slave act, or more recently state nullifications of federal marijuana laws. So certainly the states have the power to declare laws unconstitutional and ignore them, why couldn't the president?
"But who cares, if it's impossible to enforce those laws?"
Yet another reader that didn't watch the video but commented anyway..... Had you watched it, you'd have seen the part where he explained that the FBI, who has a bigger budget and much more manpower, would be tasked to enforce them.
I watched the video and he has a good point. The main problem I have is with the regulations that are treated like a law. The first thing I would like to see is the application of the chevron doctrine to remove all regulations not codified in a law. This would put the onus congress to pass explicit laws about bump stocks, suppressors, etc. Currently, the agency of un-elected bureaucrats can define what is legal or not and enforce it without authority.
All comments are moderated due to spam, drunks and trolls. Keep 'em civil, coherent, short, and on topic. Posted comments are the opinions of the commenters, not the site administrator.
I agree. He makes a well thought out, excellent argument.
ReplyDeleteHe laid it out very well. I would like to see the stamps go away.
DeleteTake the ATF out of the gun control business and put them on the border as a sheild against illegal invaders... That way they can stop shooting law-abiding citizens and their dogs and deal with actual criminals..
ReplyDeleteJD
"Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" is a chimera. (Something composed of items that have no logical connection.) It makes no sense. Just get rid of it. I don't know why he's sucking up to them but if we had a debate I'd annihilate him and I'm not even close to being the strongest voice on the subject. I wish I had a coupon I could share here for a free pack of Rolaids. Also, he should lay off the Brylcreem, it's so 50's. 😂 - Joely
ReplyDeleteDIdn't watch the video, did you? Or did everything he said just go right over your head? Like the part about abolishing the ATF doesn't abolish the laws that were voted on by Congress?
DeleteI didn't view the video. I disagree with the premise.
ReplyDeleteThe ATF has, since the institution of the '69 gun control act, maintained an illegal gun control registry.
For this reason alone, they should be disbanded and all current and former living heads of the agency prosecuted for criminal conduct in defiance of Federal Law and the registry should be destroyed with neutral witnesses to ascertain that it was done.
Oh, the ATF would never maintain a gun control registry because they say they don't? Heads of Federal agencies never lie do they?
Nemo
Jesus. Why do I even bother posting an article or video if you're not going to watch it before commenting? What a waste of my time.
DeleteA very mature, well thought out presentation. Hope it happens.
DeleteIt's not a waste of your time. It's just that so many people have the attention span of a goldfish. They get caught up in the first thing they see and ignore everything else after. like my friends just down the road. When the election was stolen in 20 they said that Trump should just take it like a man and suck it up. If the leftists could have taken the presidency, they could then fuck with us. Of course all along the way they did, they had 4 years to devalue our currency, among other things. I could point out things that wouldn't have been done under Trump, and they'd agree that it would have been better. But then they'll add in the next breath that Trump should have kept his mouth shut.
DeleteSome people have to burn their pecker on the stove to learn that it's hot. In spite of all the other evidence to confirm it.
I'd just watched it up to the first ad but I went back and watched enough of the rest of it to see that he's right. It's like a C++ class you have to dismantle before you dispose of it because the sharp parts that lurk could create havoc. Thanks for the nudge. I guess patience isn't one of my great traits. - Joely
ReplyDeleteThanks for the follow-up. I appreciate that.
DeleteMy heart burn is the definition of antique fire arms. Yes I know this was part of a passed law, however defining a rifle made on December 31, 1898 an antique, but an exact duplicate made seven days later a modern weapon with all the attached paperwork is the definition of ridiculous. A single shot 22 made at any time does not equate to a Barrett 50 caliber semi auto yet the paper work is the same. The rules have been so twisted over time that they need to be tossed and totally rewritten to some level of sanity. Rant over.
ReplyDeleteNot "rewritten" just "tossed".
DeleteHerrera is simply adhering to the statement, “Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.” His analysis us spit on.
ReplyDelete“spot”
ReplyDeleteYou missed "is"
DeleteThere's a lot of what if's in the 2nd half of his presentation, but he makes a good case.
ReplyDelete-lg
OK, it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea whose time has come. $40 Trillion national debt coming up by the 2026 midterms. It's time to cut cut cut, like Javier Milei and his chainsaw did for Argentina.
ReplyDeleteHe talks about some strategies starting about 3:45 here too https://youtu.be/-1rLHDJQqxQ?si=mXDrjZptVWF__-Iu
ReplyDeleteWell, it's a good point that getting rid of the agency doesn't get rid of the laws. But who cares, if it's impossible to enforce those laws?
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's much point to officially getting rid of the law. Label it ALL as blatantly unconstitutional, stop enforcing all of it, and THEN worry about correcting the bookkeeping later. You don't need an enforcement agency for laws that shouldn't/can't be enforced.
And it's entirely legal to do so - unless you believe that SCOTUS is the ONLY and FINAL arbiter of what's constitutional and what isn't, which position I regard as silly and uninformed. Look at the nullification of the fugitive slave act, or more recently state nullifications of federal marijuana laws. So certainly the states have the power to declare laws unconstitutional and ignore them, why couldn't the president?
John G
"But who cares, if it's impossible to enforce those laws?"
DeleteYet another reader that didn't watch the video but commented anyway.....
Had you watched it, you'd have seen the part where he explained that the FBI, who has a bigger budget and much more manpower, would be tasked to enforce them.
I watched the video and he has a good point. The main problem I have is with the regulations that are treated like a law. The first thing I would like to see is the application of the chevron doctrine to remove all regulations not codified in a law. This would put the onus congress to pass explicit laws about bump stocks, suppressors, etc. Currently, the agency of un-elected bureaucrats can define what is legal or not and enforce it without authority.
ReplyDelete