OtherGround Forums Kamala Harris is coming for your guns...

10 days ago
3/14/08
Posts: 935

Lmao “they” have been “coming for you guns” for a loooong time now haven’t they? Fucking paranoid fucks.

10 days ago
1/2/15
Posts: 8114
JessDogg -

Lmao “they” have been “coming for you guns” for a loooong time now haven’t they? Fucking paranoid fucks.

Yeah, just look at lefty states to see how free gun owners are! 

 

 

10 days ago
12/17/06
Posts: 76948
JessDogg -

Lmao “they” have been “coming for you guns” for a loooong time now haven’t they? Fucking paranoid fucks.

Post the paint cans or shut the fuck up, you whore.

10 days ago
6/13/03
Posts: 23707

Hope that bitch got scuba gear

 

10 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 46341
stickman -
amadeus - 
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

Do you somehow believe that online sales don't require background checks!?

I believe that any sales, online or otherwise (like in proper gun stores, or gun shows) should have background checks.

i believe you suck marc dennys cock

10 days ago
10/2/12
Posts: 11042
JessDogg -

Lmao “they” have been “coming for you guns” for a loooong time now haven’t they? Fucking paranoid fucks.

Yes they have. Is your head in the sand or just up your ass? 

10 days ago
5/1/14
Posts: 6362
shen -

Either she's a former Attorney General who has no familiarity with crime statistics or she's  completely dishonest.

 

As a Democrat its the second.

10 days ago
3/18/12
Posts: 8438
In Limbo -
stickman -
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

ill speak to the first quote about "suspected white nationalists"

we've all seen how easily poiliticians, media, normal people, etc. can label somebody a "nazi" or "white nationalist"

we have POTUS hopefuls actually calling Trump a RACIST and a WHITE NATIONALIST or WHITE SUPREMACIST

those people would hae no problems labeling the supporters of a "white racist nationalist supremacist" as "white naitonalists" as well

Correct.  It's very dangerous

10 days ago
9/8/02
Posts: 23556
Define White Nationalist.
9 days ago
12/17/06
Posts: 76965
Trust -
stickman - 
that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.



The California senator said she would also look to use executive order, if Congress didn’t act within 100 days of her taking office, to require background checks on all online gun sales. Currently, it’s possible to purchase a weapon online without a background check in 30 states.

“In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop or smartphone,” Harris said.


Stuff like the above doesn't seem unreasonable. Is the concern that such rules would be abused, thus unlawfully removing access to firearms from proper, law-abiding citizens? I'm not trying to be hostile to OP, but genuinely asking.

"online gun sales" could mean different things.  If you order a gun from a gun store online, they *WILL NOT* ship it to you; they will ship it to a licensed dealer near you (you usually can chose the dealer during the 'checkout' process).  You then have to go to the dealer, and the dealer is required to run the background check.  In some states, after you clear the background check, you may have to wait a period of time (days) before you can come back and actually take possesion of the gun.  

On the other hand, there are "online" websites were private individuals can sell their guns to other private individuals.  Depending on the state, such private, person to person sales between residents of the same state do not require a background check (and arguably a federal law requiring such would be unconstitutional).  States that allow this usually require the seller to verify the buyer is a resident of the state (i.e. driver's license), otherwise it is an illegal sale that violates federal law. 

The article is misleading, likely intentionally, perpetuating the myth that "online gun sales" do not require background checks. Private sales between residents of the same state are not 'interstate commerce,' and are therefore not under congressional authority, so long as the seller is not engaging in the equivalent of unlicensed gun sales (e.g. acting like a gun seller, but without a license). 

If I have an old gun I no longer need, and decide to sell it, that's fine.  If I go buy several guns, and turn around and sell them for a profit, I am an unlicensed dealer.    

The so called Red Flag laws are a great idea in principle, but there isn't really a good way to implement them that will prevent serious abuse.  If you have a disagreement with a crazy neighbor, and they know you have guns, they could call the police and claim you threatened them; the police would then be required to act.  You would have to wear a body cam and record yourself 24/7 to avoid a "your word against theirs" situation where the police would be required to assume the accusation is true. 

I work with a family law attorney who handles a lot of divorce cases.  In about half the cases he works on, the woman claims domestic abuse, and most of the time it's bullshit.  That happened to a friend of mine, but fortunately, unbeknownst to his ex, he actually did have a camera recording at the time she claimed the attack happened.  The court still took action against him, until he could prove it was a complete fabrication, and that was not a trivial process.  

Can't vote this up enough.