Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF's rules make no sense, but that's by design. They are AR pattern firearms without a buttstock, making them pistols.

When people talk about "common sense" gun laws, they rarely think to deal with issues like this, where the government and the ATF have made an absolute mess of things in an attempt to infringe on peoples rights to firearm ownership.

Ok. That makes zero sense.

I'm sure this will be as relevant in 30ish days as it is now

Why the cryptic nonsense. You said This was relevant because Biden is in charge of the ATF. he isn't. Can't you just admit you were wrong?

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Ok. That makes zero sense.

Exactly the issue.

Why the cryptic nonsense. You said This was relevant because Biden is in charge of the ATF. he isn't. Can't you just admit you were wrong?

Fine, Biden will assume control in a month. Pedantry satisfied. He has long pushed for increased gun restrictions, which carry no logic behind them. See the Assault Weapons Ban.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF's rules make no sense, but that's by design. They are AR pattern firearms without a buttstock, making them pistols.

When people talk about "common sense" gun laws, they rarely think to deal with issues like this, where the government and the ATF have made an absolute mess of things in an attempt to infringe on peoples rights to firearm ownership.



I'm sure this will be as relevant in 30ish days as it is now

##Mod Note##

And if it is , you can bring it up then.

For now though , this is off topic for this thread

Move on please.

Water John

Biden and Harris will be vaccinated on Monday.

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

Biden and Harris will be vaccinated on Monday.

I reckon they should take two different vaccines- both Pfizer and Moderna have been approved by the FDA...

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF is a federal agency. Biden has long supported restrictions on gun ownership. Biden is now in charge of said agency. Not that hard to follow.

Funny but it’s not 12:01pm January 20th, 2021, its December 19th, 2020, so no joe Biden is not now in charge of said federal agency. So that’s a mistruth. So you’re wrong.

Water John

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Funny but it’s not 12:01pm January 20th, 2021, its December 19th, 2020, so no joe Biden is not now in charge of said federal agency. So that’s a mistruth. So you’re wrong.

Ah you should never let the truth get in the way.

astrofool

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF's rules make no sense, but that's by design. They are AR pattern firearms without a buttstock, making them pistols.

When people talk about "common sense" gun laws, they rarely think to deal with issues like this, where the government and the ATF have made an absolute mess of things in an attempt to infringe on peoples rights to firearm ownership.

I'm sure this will be as relevant in 30ish days as it is now

To be fair, the 2nd amendment wasn't designed for advanced weaponry, so everything that is put in place around it is a fudge, and makes little logical sense, reality is that it should probably be pistols and rifles and everything else reserved for military.

I'd also note that it's "Legal" and "needs a tax stamp" (i.e. you have to prove some slight competence and pay a bit of money to own it) rather than legal/illegal.

AbusesToilets

astrofool wrote: »

To be fair, the 2nd amendment wasn't designed for advanced weaponry, so everything that is put in place around it is a fudge, and makes little logical sense, reality is that it should probably be pistols and rifles and everything else reserved for military.

I'd also note that it's "Legal" and "needs a tax stamp" (i.e. you have to prove some slight competence and pay a bit of money to own it) rather than legal/illegal.

So much of gun legislation is based around illogical fear mongering. Restricting items due to cosmetic features or attachments. I fully expect the Biden administration to continue that tradition, given his already stated views.

For those belaboring a point about him not being President yet, do you think they haven't held consultations with his team yet, and that this just a coincidental announcement? A massive change in policy out of the blue.

duploelabs

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So much of gun legislation is based around illogical fear mongering. Restricting items due to cosmetic features or attachments. I fully expect the Biden administration to continue that tradition, given his already stated views.

For those belaboring a point about him not being President yet, do you think they haven't held consultations with his team yet, and that this just a coincidental announcement? A massive change in policy out of the blue.

What change in policy? Can you cite a press release by Biden's team quoting this?

MadYaker

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So much of gun legislation is based around illogical fear mongering. Restricting items due to cosmetic features or attachments. I fully expect the Biden administration to continue that tradition, given his already stated views.

For those belaboring a point about him not being President yet, do you think they haven't held consultations with his team yet, and that this just a coincidental announcement? A massive change in policy out of the blue.

Fear mongering? The proliferation of weapons among the civilian population is a huge problem, its why they have the worst gun violence statistics of any developed nation on earth, he is right to tackle it and has a mandate to tackle it imo.

AbusesToilets

MadYaker wrote: »

Fear mongering? The proliferation of weapons among the civilian population is a huge problem, its why they have the worst gun violence statistics of any developed nation on earth, he is right to tackle it and has a mandate to tackle it imo.

More people are killed by fists every year, or hammers, than rifles. Yet there is a constant push to ban them. Many of the restrictions on them have nought to do with their destructive power or lethality, rather meaningless cosmetic features.

That is what I mean by fear mongering. The "gun violence" is almost entirely due to illegal weapons. See Chicago, every week. Banning " Assault Weapons ( a meaningless term in its own right) will accomplish nothing, just like the last time.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Igotadose

AbusesToilets wrote: »

More people are killed by fists every year, or hammers, than rifles. Yet there is a constant push to ban them. Many of the restrictions on them have nought to do with their destructive power or lethality, rather meaningless cosmetic features.

That is what I mean by fear mongering. The "gun violence" is almost entirely due to illegal weapons. See Chicago, every week. Banning " Assault Weapons ( a meaningless term in its own right) will accomplish nothing, just like the last time.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Hrm. Biden not in office and already starting on gun ban non-debate. So, nothing else important for the President Elect to worry about going in? Everything else hunky-dory? Jobs going well? Everyone healthy?


Tedious tGOP crap. Got nothing, were in control and killed thousands and the economy, but but but the assault rifle ban! The evil ATF! Waco! David Koresh! Justice for Robert Maxwell!

AbusesToilets

Igotadose wrote: »

Hrm. Biden not in office and already starting on gun ban non-debate. So, nothing else important for the President Elect to worry about going in? Everything else hunky-dory? Jobs going well? Everyone healthy?


Tedious tGOP crap. Got nothing, were in control and killed thousands and the economy, but but but the assault rifle ban! The evil ATF! Waco! David Koresh! Justice for Robert Maxwell!

It's a legitimate concern for many millions of Americans, across the political spectrum. Sneering dismissal is exactly the attitude that has lost the Democrats voters over the years, mostly in the working classes.

duploelabs

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's a legitimate concern for many millions of Americans, across the political spectrum. Sneering dismissal is exactly the attitude that has lost the Democrats voters over the years, mostly in the working classes.

You alluded to a recent change in policy from Biden, but you haven't produced his communication on it. Can you point to it please?

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

For those belaboring a point about him not being President yet, do you think they haven't held consultations with his team yet, and that this just a coincidental announcement? A massive change in policy out of the blue.

I can only assume the sitting president supports this move

AbusesToilets

duploelabs wrote: »

You alluded to a recent change in policy from Biden, but you haven't produced his communication on it. Can you point to it please?

I pointed out a change in policy by the ATF.

duploelabs

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I pointed out a change in policy by the ATF.

You said it was a recent policy change by Biden.
The ATF doesn't answer to Biden, trump/Barr would be where you're meant to be pointing to, but that doesn't suit your narrative does it?

Gbear

MadYaker wrote: »

Fear mongering? The proliferation of weapons among the civilian population is a huge problem, its why they have the worst gun violence statistics of any developed nation on earth, he is right to tackle it and has a mandate to tackle it imo.

That's not really that clear cut.

The US also has a much more draconian carceral system, massive poverty and wealth inequality, systemic racism, cultural issues relating to violence beyond simple gun ownership, poor access to healthcare (including relating to sexual health), gheottoisation in major metropolitian areas, and on and on go the issues.

Ultimately, all else being equal, the US could have double the murder rate of another country as a product of the prevalence of guns, and that might be a problem, but it'd still be relatively minor public health issue. 15000 murders is frankly trivial, when we've just seen 20 times that die from a relatively minor pandemic.

The amount of political capital it will take to "fix" the gun issue means that it's an incredibly inefficient way to improve standards of living for people in the US.
Healthcare, minimum wages, unions, legislation that protect workers, are all things that Republican elected officials might try to stonewall, but they're generally hugely popular. That's less true for gun control (depending on how gun control is defined), and it's also not clear how effective legislation would be in solving the problem anyway.

One only needs to look at the emphasis put on deaths by "military weapons", when overwhelmingly homicides are caused by handguns, or how the emphasis is put on murders at all, when the majority of gun deaths in the US are self-inflicted, to see that the gun control argument is not grounded in rationality. It's born of a media that thrives off of fear porn.

AbusesToilets

duploelabs wrote: »

You said it was a recent policy change by Biden.
The ATF doesn't answer to Biden, trump/Barr would be where you're meant to be pointing to, but that doesn't suit your narrative does it?

I didn't else you'd quote where I had.

You said it was a recent policy change by Biden.
The ATF doesn't answer to Biden, trump/Barr would be where you're meant to be pointing to, but that doesn't suit your narrative does it?

Which narrative would that be? Pointing a terrible decision by a federal agency, or that it falls in line with Biden's stated opinion on gun legislation?

duploelabs

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I didn't else you'd quote where I had.



Which narrative would that be? Pointing a terrible decision by a federal agency, or that it falls in line with Biden's stated opinion on gun legislation?

You're drawing conclusions though, practically every department have ceased working with the president elects team. Suddenly the doj changes their tune and its Biden's fault?

Quin_Dub

Next post about ATF/ Gun control gets a ban

Move on

AbusesToilets

Interesting article here on Kerry. I hope that Biden will pursue an aggressive stance against China, and work to build consensus with Europe to do so.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/risk-john-kerry-following-his-own-china-policy/617459/

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

AR stands for "assault rifle". Pistols are hand guns. Your post makes no sense

Ah, no. "ArmaLite Rifle". Popular company with certain people on the island of Ireland at one time.

If a pistol is designed to be fired single-handed if necessary, without recourse to a shoulder stock, then yes, there are AR pistols. You basically take a very short barreled AR upper, you mate it to a buffer tube enclosure instead of a stock, and voila. Looks something like this.

https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-v9wzb8m8hv/images/stencil/790x790/uploaded_images/ar-15-pistol-large.jpg?t=1576606668

Then the whole pistol brace thing came about. The most basic type rests on the forearm, you can strap it down if you have the time.
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AR15-Pistol-Stabilizing-Brace-1.jpg
Utterly pointless device, IMO, but whatever floats your boat for fun on the range. The only advantage to the whole thing is that you get a cheap plinker without even having to buy a second gun, just swap the upper and change out the stock. In terms of practical usage, it's as near to pointless as makes no difference. Barrel is way too short for effective ballistics, and if you're going to have something bigger than a standard pistol, just use a carbine anyway.

However, there are types of brace now which extend sufficiently far that they can be used as a shoulder stock as well as as and arm support. Which basically means that the whole definition of what was a legal or an illegal rifle was very much a matter of arbitrary decision on the part of a regulatory agency. Something similar happened with bump stocks a couple of years ago when they got reclassified by the ATF without any change in legislation: One of those things where there is no real practical definition in law, beyond what people arbitrarily think should be. The whole thing on pistol braces has been a matter of some confusion to most folks for several years.

That said, I don't see Biden having much of an effect on ATF regulation. It's his legislative priorities which I think would be more interesting, assuming he can get anything past the Senate, even if the House passes something.

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ah, no. "ArmaLite Rifle". Popular company with certain people on the island of Ireland at one time.

If a pistol is designed to be fired single-handed if necessary, without recourse to a shoulder stock, then yes, there are AR pistols. You basically take a very short barreled AR upper, you mate it to a buffer tube enclosure instead of a stock, and voila. Looks something like this.

https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-v9wzb8m8hv/images/stencil/790x790/uploaded_images/ar-15-pistol-large.jpg?t=1576606668

Then the whole pistol brace thing came about. The most basic type rests on the forearm, you can strap it down if you have the time.
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AR15-Pistol-Stabilizing-Brace-1.jpg
Utterly pointless device, IMO, but whatever floats your boat for fun on the range. The only advantage to the whole thing is that you get a cheap plinker without even having to buy a second gun, just swap the upper and change out the stock. In terms of practical usage, it's as near to pointless as makes no difference. Barrel is way too short for effective ballistics, and if you're going to have something bigger than a standard pistol, just use a carbine anyway.

However, there are types of brace now which extend sufficiently far that they can be used as a shoulder stock as well as as and arm support. Which basically means that the whole definition of what was a legal or an illegal rifle was very much a matter of arbitrary decision on the part of a regulatory agency. Something similar happened with bump stocks a couple of years ago when they got reclassified by the ATF without any change in legislation: One of those things where there is no real practical definition in law, beyond what people arbitrarily think should be. The whole thing on pistol braces has been a matter of some confusion to most folks for several years.

That said, I don't see Biden having much of an effect on ATF regulation. It's his legislative priorities which I think would be more interesting, assuming he can get anything past the Senate, even if the House passes something.

Do you support the ban of guns at gun show and similar where background checks are suspended?

Just a yes or no answer, and then your reasoning why would be great

Deshawn

John Kerry is a great addition. Proven track record, genuine type of man and an intelligent politician.

Manic Moran

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Next post about ATF/ Gun control gets a ban

Move on

Apologies, saw that afterwards.

Manach

Deshawn wrote: »

John Kerry is a great addition. Proven track record, genuine type of man and an intelligent politician.

Based on brief historical review of his tenure that assertion cannot be supported. He was picked for the Obama admin for being a loyalist who would toe the democratic party line and he approved of airstrikes in the Middle East for reasons of US prestige (Druck, 2015, The Obama Doctrine). Hence he is yet another interventionist and holdover from the Obama admin who will likely go with flow and reverse the Trump admin's disengagement from that area.

MadYaker

Trump didn’t disengage from the middle east at all. As usual he made noise about it but didn’t actually do it.

He also armed the likes of Saudi Arabia to the tooth with weapons that were later used for attacking civilians..