doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com If We Follow Canada's Lead

Frankly I was just going to say the Hell with it as the trolls have apparently taken control of this forum but this information is too important not to pass on given the current attempt by Obama to circumvent the U S Constitution.
Please note the reporters comments regarding shotguns and rifles:
Jim

https://www.youtube.com/embed/03XEUPfD0qM

As long as we are violating the letter and the spirit of the rules here:

No doubt Obama and the gun grabbers did sequential focus groups in order to find the most persuasive arguments for gun control in preparation for CNN's "town hall". Which, of course, was really just carefully choreographed Kabuki theater.

Obama and his anti-gun allies want to take our hand guns, our semi auto rifles and our semi-auto shotguns. And if they are successful their successors will go after our successors' lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, over and unders, and double guns.

I believe the NRA is right. We should not cede one word of new gun regulation without a fight. We should legally fight gun control on every front, in the courts, in the voting booth, and by financially supporting the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Republican party.

Amen to that Mike!

There's no "if" about it: the vast majority of Americans and Canadians are in lock-step support of background checks, according to all the polls.

We may fume and fulminate, postulate Valhalla or blue ruin, but like Sgt. Friday said, "Just the facts, m'am." I leave it there.

the fact is, no federal official has recently proposed a national gun registry...and this being an election year, it is doubtful that any will...

and as for federal background checks, it was a bad idea in 1993 and it is still a bad idea...better to use the federal dollars spent on background checks to help fight violent criminals...

Link to your "vast majority" ?
Thats a pure 100% LIE BTW,

The truth about backround checks

https://youtu.be/JLTMkg1RLW0

I rather not follow a country whose dollar has fallen to about .71 of our dollar. You follow leaders if you want but not countries dealing with long term economic issues and their dollar has gone from par 1.00 US to1.00 C to .71US. Or put easier what they could buy from us for a single of their dollars a short time ago now cost them 1.41C. Not a good direction to be going.

Fact is we have back ground checks...and the "Internet sales" bull chit is just that bull chit. There is no way to sell a modern gun over the internet without shiping it to a licensed gun dealer.

Ian Thomson, the subject of the the video, is as well know in the gun community as it's possible to be. The specifics of his case are unbelievable and it has been clear to all for a very long time that the crown was trying to make an example of him....the prosecution had nothing to do with the specifics of his case and everything to do with the politics of the prosecution. An utter travesty. Made me and 100,000 other Canadians embarrassed to be Canadian.

Jon, I don't mind criticism grounded in logic or reality but this has neither. The climb of our dollar over the last dozen years was hugely about being a petro dollar and the fall is directly related to the drop in the value of oil. Full stop. It's not about anything else. I spent 35 years involved in FX and in particular buying millions of US dollar futures annually to cover my anticipated purchases. I'm not just winging it.

Most independent assessments of our economy suggested we had the best performing economy of the G7 since 2008. Our banking system withstood the 2008 crisis better than any in the Western world. We have lots of problems and our gun laws are included in that, but the drop in our dollar is most directly related to Saudi Arabia's intention to break the back of the US oil industry.

Absolutely!

Is it possible that the US government is passing guns to the inner city gangs like they did with the Mexican drug cartel with their so called "Fast and Furious" ?

The US people are still waiting on an answer to "Fast and Furious" maybe Kingfish could tell us why ?

The focus right now is on background checks. The really insidious part is requiring causal sellers to become gun dealers. I've heard it may apply to those selling only two guns a year. It would essentially criminalize millions of law-abiding citizens, and in fact create an ad hoc registry. Everyone knows guns must be shipped to an FFL holder for transfer, the real attack is on those casual sellers selling only a few guns a year.

We all believe in gun control....even Keith, and the NRA.

The fight is......where to draw the line, and who decides where that line is. Even here, if people had anonymity, and had no fear of verbal retribution, would admit to having their line drawn much further then some others.

D.

gun control at the state level is not a violation of the second amendment. in fact, it is encouraged by the tenth amendment. gun control at the federal level and in particular the 1993 law that created federal background checks is a violation of the second amendment.

instead of discussing fantasy national gun registration, and that leading to confiscation, perhaps we should be debating the wisdom of repealing the federal gun control law of 1993 and restoring the decision to conduct background checks or not, to the states?

On Jan. 4th, when Dave Weber locked the most recent discussion pertaining to Gun Control and Gun Rights, he said this:

"This is NOT a political debate arena.

This is a pro-gun website...and surprise surprise...I am pro-gun.
As in pro-all kinds of guns...not just pretty 2 barreled ones."

With that statement, our host made his own entry into the politics of Gun Control. But Dave's statement was not debate. The people who have agreed here in this thread with Dave are also not debating the issue. Dave went on to say this:

"If you are not pro gun you can either leave...Or, pipe down and be respectful of the majority. We really don't care to hear your opinion."

In response to that stern warning, a couple non-U.S. citizens who have frequently supported Gun Control and Anti-Gun politicians such as Obama said this:



And this:



The problem is, King Brown, and dla (sic), and Ed Good promote and support 2nd Amendment restrictions on law abiding citizens. I don't, and neither does the NRA. These Trolls not only continually work to undermine our freedoms, they continue to violate Dave's very recent warning to either keep their Anti-Gun opinions to themselves, or simply leave. Were any of you polled on your opinion of Universal Background Checks? Me neither! Trolls like them are the sole reason why we cannot have simple and factual discussions about the threats to our Constitutional Gun Rights in this forum. Anti-Gun Trolls like them are why these discussions sometimes degenerate into the distasteful. Is it any wonder when Trolls, who claim they are not Anti-Gun, make irrational statements like this:



I am not engaging in political debate. We all know what happened a few days ago. Barack Hussein Obama sidestepped Congress and enacted new laws that will affect many of you. This is the same Obama who recently commuted the sentences of drug offenders, knowing how much gun violence is caused by the drug trade. Obama, who has been 100% anti-gun his entire political life did not disappoint. Barack Hussein Obama, who said he respects the 2nd Amendment also told Prof. John Lott at the University of Chicago that "I don�t believe people should be able to own guns."

Under Obama's Executive Order, if you sell more than one gun... you will be considered a dealer. If you do not have an FFL, you will be a felon subject to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If you give a gun to your son without a background check, you have committed a Federal Felony and will go to prison and lose your voting rights. What does this do to Dave's For Sale section? How many guys here sell more than one gun using Dave's For Sale Section? That section is closed to most FFL Dealers now. How many guys here have more than one gun to sell or pass on to their heirs? How does Dave know if the non-FFL advertisers in the For Sale Section here are in compliance with the new draconian law, and can he be considered an accessory to any illegal transfers?

Other non-U.S. citizens who contribute here from Canada, Great Britain, and Australia have warned us in the past to never give up an inch. The inch was given up when Obama was elected, and he has taken a mile. Like it or not, we now have an illegal backdoor Gun Registry. If Universal Background Checks was not a Registry, the Form 4473 would not require the make, model and serial number of the firearm being transferred. No debate... just the facts.

Dave says that this is a Pro-Gun website. I'll believe that when I see some of the Anti-Gun Trolls finally get the boot. And now the Trolls will be screaming and e-mailing Dave to have this thread deleted as well.

Has everyone forgotten that the Clinton admin. reduced the number of FFL holders by thousands and thousands( if my memory is correct, they were trying for 120000). They did this by withdrawing the FFLs, refusing to renew them, or harassing the holders, until they gave up. The reason they gave was that these FFL holders didn't have a Bona Fide business because they weren't selling enough to be a business, but were rather a hobby. Also if the Obama admin wants to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, they should talk to their friends in New York and Chicago and have them re-implement "stop and frisk".
Mike

The FACT is Kieth, that just because you keep saying things like this -

The problem is, King Brown, and dla (sic), and Ed Good promote and support 2nd Amendment restrictions on law abiding citizens. I don't.

Does not make it true. YOU do not believe in giving convicted criminals guns...and neither do I....and that is a form of gun control....but of course when I say it....I'm a pro obama anti gun left winger....when you say it....your a true and blue always right republican. Look in the mirror every once in a while.

You would be surprised how much we might agree upon, unfortunately your fanaticism blinds you much of the time.

D.

i for one, certainly do remember the clinton admin...it took me from 1998 to 2000 to get my ffl renewed...i received three extension letters over an 18 month period. finally, when i refused to give up, my ffl was renewed.

interesting how clinton reduced the number of ffl dealers to under 100,000, by the time he left office.

now ob wants to increase the number of ffl holders. go figure...

If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan? Go figure.

Yea, Ed you go figure. More FFL's= more sales recorded on 4473's= more guns subject to what????

well, the federal gun control law of 1968 made it a federal offense to engage in the business of selling firearms without a federal firearms dealers license...

that law is also a violation of the constitution, as no where in the document does it grant the power to the federal government to require citizens to obtain a license to sell anything.

maybe we should also be discussing the wisdom of repealing the federal gun control law of 1968, as well as the federal gun control law of 1993?

gun control should be a local and state issue. it should be none of the feds bidness...

Correct - Obama is undoing Clinton's earlier decision that expanding the universe of licensed dealers had become unwieldy. I look forward to hearing Billary's explanation of that decision during the general election (Was your husband wrong or is your former boss wrong?).

Keith - I agree with your fundamental point, but the sale of more than one gun will not automatically establish you as a dealer. There is a blog post on GunsAmerica stating that nothing really has changed. Similarly, an former ATF senior enforcement official was quoted in the NYT a few days ago saying essentially the same thing. The statutory and regulatory language is unchanged and ATF has always had and continues to have enforcement discretion to interpret "engaged in the business of dealing firearms."

The whole "dealer" issue is a lot smoke and mirrors to distract everyone's attention away form the fact that the real work - stopping illegal trafficking - has been ignored by Obama for the last 7 years, due in no small part to the "Fast and Furious" debacle.

Here is a great dissection of Obama's proposal: Reason Blog

Doverham, I agree with almost all of your points except for your assertion that nothing really has changed. Nothing really has changed for criminals and drug dealers who by and large get their guns from theft and other illegal channels. Nothing has changed for rogue elements of our Government who illegally supplied Mexican drug cartels with semi-automatic assault style weapons. All of the change has been directed at law abiding U.S. citizens who must now supply the Government with a complete traceable database and thus an illegal Firearms Registry, by giving information of every firearm they transfer... even as a gift to a son or daughter. And they must pay the associated transfer fees at approximately $40.00 a pop. How many guys here have 25, 50, or even more guns that will in some way be transferred, either by selling or bequeathing in their estates? And they must now guess how the ATF under Anti-Gun administrations will use their "discretion to interpret 'engaged in the business' of dealing firearms." Do you want to be the test case when Federal Agents, using ATF discretion, charge you with a felony because you sold a couple guns or gave them to your grandson?

You say that essentially, nothing really has changed. But your link takes us to a page that gives us 6 reasons why Obama Is Untrustworthy On Guns. I urge everyone to read that article. I think most of us can agree with that as well. Nothing has changed there. Obama has always been untrustworthy on guns, and his latest Executive Order gives him more opportunity to infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of law abiding gun owners while doing virtually nothing to reduce gun violence.

I do agree with Ed Good on the Gun Control Act of 1968. The long term costs and damages caused by it are evidence of what happens when gun owners are complacent and supportive of anti-gun politicians. Makes you wonder why Ed initiated Threads last year proposing Ex-NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo as good Presidential candidates, and also claiming that we should give up our semi-auto handguns. dla (sic) apparently still equates laws restricting gun ownership by felons with infringements upon the rights of law abiding citizens, and uses the former to excuse the latter. That is a debate I refuse to engage in simply because it is silly. Contrary to what the Trolls here say, you cannot support Anti-Gun politicians and still claim to be Pro-Gun. That is like calling yourself a vegetarian while you are eating a steak.

uh keet, gotta correct you...again...ah neva proposed cu mo to be a good pres candidate...sounds like your fantasy paranoia is revealing itself...again...

an, i like bloomberg for the same reason i like trump...they are both extraordinarily successful entreprenuers...figure guys like them would also be great national leaders...hopefully we will get to find out re trump? it would be great if bloomberg would jump in now and run as a dem agin da donald. but alas, it aint gonna happen...bloomberg is too old and too tired, like me...

glad we agree re the gun control act of 68... what say you re the gun control act of 93? both of these draconian knee jerk over reaches of federal power costs us tax payers far more than the benefits that are accrued to us citizens?

an keet, last year, i also proposed trump for pres.. you fur got to mention that here...

who do you like for pres and vp? my votes are for trump and doc carson...both are highly successful achievers in the non political, non lawyer world...something almost unknown in washington, dc...consider that da donald and da doc have already made their fortunes and marks in the world...and unlike so many others, they do not need to go to dc to achieve wealth and fame...they already have it...could it be that they just want to serve...us?

Ed, I'm really shocked to see that you don't recall your Misfires thread supporting Andrew Coumo. I know you also proposed Trump for President. Do you also remember saying this in your Misfires Post # 400438 on 4/9/15?



Or how 'bout this one... don fur git to menshun dis:



Or this from #407939 on 6/23/15:

keet, let us not drag this thread down the rabbit hole like so many others?

I am not engaging in political debate in this forum Ed. You can go troll somewhere else to discuss who the next President should be. Like Sgt Friday said... "Just the facts." Facts that affect the owners of Double Guns as much as a barrel obstruction.

As an example of what can happen when an anti-gun administration practices selective enforcement, this post appeared yesterday in the For Sale section in the "WTB 20 ga. Double w/cut Barrels" ad:



There are a lot of vendors at most Gun Shows who are not FFL Dealers. They and their wares are the main reason many of us attend Gun Shows. Most of these non-FFL vendors are not making a living selling used guns, but the vast majority have a number of guns to sell. Many of these guys have been selling at Gun Shows for years. I often wonder if some of them make any money at all when they price their guns too high and keep bringing them to multiple gun shows and pay multiple table fees. Past practice may have no bearing on whether or when the interpretation of "Engaged in the business" suddenly changes. Enforcement discretion is vague and can be arbitrary while actual felons or illegal aliens who attempt to buy guns by lying on a form 4473 are not prosecuted. It is troubling to hear of this former dealer being charged with tax evasion for being a "Manufacturer" if he was simply cutting shotgun barrels to a legal length. It sounds as though the definition of "Manufacturer" has suddenly changed. It used to be that you had to actually make the action or receiver of a gun to be considered a manufacturer. The times, they are a-changin'.

Some of you may remember the noted muzzleloading gunsmith John Bivens. Although he built low numbers of very high quality black powder muzzleloaders, the BATF decided he was a "manufacturer" and wanted to apply Pittman-Roberston (spell) taxes to his arms. John disagreed and fought it in court. The Buckskin Report by John Baird and others championed a "John Bivins Defense Fund". As I recall, it was decided that he was not considered a manufacturer because of his product (muzzleloaders) and his low volume, but he was guilty of not filing the excise tax form. He was nearly bankrupted and finished his career building furniture instead of flintlocks and fowlers. Bivens was a fairly regular contributor of fine gunsmithing articles in Rifle Magazine, and we lost all of that great information when he became caught up in his legal battle.

No political debate here... just the facts.

You see where one of Yo'bamas media supporters claimed that guns were coming into Chicago by the trunk loads from Indiana gun shows. When questioned about proof their reply was "we think they are".

If Obama had just a few more years in office I'm sure he and Eric Holder could set up a "Fast and Furious" sting on Chicago...

Heck I'd probably donate a few bucks for ammo.

I went a gun show this past week end and I was shocked at the attendance level...and most were of African decent.

My buddy said at the previous gun show he made a few hundred bucks all weekend, the first day at this one he'd made eleven hundred dollars and he doesn't do back ground checks.

The falling Canadian dollar has little to do with government and more in relation of the biggest commodity Oil ....... That the World Price has fallen and from 146.00 USD to 30.00 USD fact
Following Canada's lead would be to scrap a registry because it didn't work and has cost the taxpayers 10s of millions but our Liberals felt safer and looking down the same road I'm seeing your Liberals looking for the same safety net ....best of luck you'll need it united you must stand!

Well . . . far better to have decent Africans rather than indecent ones.

Did you READ what Keith wrote? Notice the words "Law Abiding" in HIS statement. Notice the words "Convicted Criminals" in YOUR statement.

These are NOT the same thing. You are equating gun control with something it is not, which is criminal control. IF you are a criminal, no guns, period. If you are law abiding, and not a criminal, no restrictions, period.

Think.


Best,
Ted

the need or desire of society to regulate firearms or any other tangible object, should be a local issue and should not be the bidness of the federal gubmint...

Ed, do you recall frantically trying to bait us into foolish discussions about restricting and giving up entire classes of firearms to appease the Anti-Gunners? Do you recall saying:



The most onerous restrictions, infringements, and outright bans on firearms in the U.S. have occurred at the State and Local level. The 2008 Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases were about restrictions that happened at the LOCAL level in Washington D.C. and Chicago. You are making the argument that free and law abiding U.S. citizens should be able to have their Constitutional and Civil Rights taken away from them simply because they have the misfortune to live in a jurisdiction governed by Anti-Gun Liberal Left Democrats. It makes little difference where infringements upon the 2nd Amendment come from Ed. Free and law abiding people still lose some of their freedom.

Here's something for you all to think about. I don't expect Ed Good, King, or dla (sic) to accept it because they have a demonstrable agenda. King has told us that these anti-gun laws are OK because majorities vote for the representatives who pass the laws. Using that logic, it would be OK for white majorities to elect representatives who would reimpose slavery upon blacks. Obama has repeatedly told us that he doesn't expect that his new Universal Background Checks will stop all of the gun violence. But he has used the old argument of "shouldn't we at least try if it will save even one life?"

Sounds reasonable until you remember that Obama adamantly opposed "Kate's Law" and promised to veto any law that would imprison murderous illegal aliens who repeatedly sneak back into the United States and break our laws and kill innocent citizens like Kate Steinle.

No political debate. Just the facts.

keith: sounds like you wish to assert the power of the federal government to usurp the rights of states and municipalities to regulate firearms...sadly, that is not the topic of this thread...perhaps you should start another thread with federal power vs. states rights as its topic?

hopefully, if we keep it civil, dave will permit it...

Neither Ed. Read the 2nd Amendment. It says that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't grant exemptions to either the states, local government, or the Feds. It sure doesn't say that infringements can be done by sidestepping the Congress via Executive Orders. You keep saying that states and local governments should have the power to usurp a Constitutional right. If anyone is being uncivil, it is you.

Please stop Trolling. We all see what your game is.

If we could get autonomy on this issue shifted back to the states, maybe we could get the federal government to regulate the borders? Would you set up check points only at state lines, or would they help at county and city limits too?

uh keet, the constitution grants certain powers to the federal government... the bill of rights protects certain rights of the states and the people from the federal government usurping power not delegated to it in the constitution. the second amendment does not grant anything to anybody, certainly not exceptions... it protects the states from the federal government infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the context of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

and keep in mind that the bill of rights purpose is to limit federal power...and the tenth amendment clearly says that powers not deleted to the federal government by the constitution are retained by the states or the people.

craigd: it is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government to provide for the national defense. regulating our borders is essential to national defense.

This is pretty much a waste of time Ed, but one more time... the 2nd Amendment does not protect states. It protects a Right of the People. And the 10th does not grant states the right to restrict other Constitutional Rights or Amendments. Repeating nonsense over and over does not make it factual.

We've been down this road a thousand times with you. Is there any question what Dave was talking about when he sequestered Misfires because the same people were pissing on each other's shoes? Your incessant Trolling worked to help bring down Misfires, and now you are drawn to anything here pertaining to Gun Rights like a moth to a flame. You sure aren't here to contribute any double gun knowledge. As I said earlier, we all see what your game is. Please try to stick to facts. We aren't interested in your perverse interpretations of the Constitution.

well keet: rather than tolerating your repeated personal attacks, insults and rudeness as illustrated above...

let us now agree to disagree...