Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Gun Control

Biden Reportedly Is Planning To Unilaterally Mandate Background Checks for All Gun Sales

A watchdog group cites ATF "whistleblowers" who describe a proposed policy that would be plainly inconsistent with federal law.

Jacob Sullum | 2.1.2024 1:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
President Joe Biden | Shawn Thew/UPI/Newscom
(Shawn Thew/UPI/Newscom)

Nearly a year ago, President Joe Biden issued an executive order aimed at "increasing the number of background checks conducted before firearm sales, moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation." According to the watchdog group Empower Oversight, which cites two unnamed "whistleblowers" at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the agency is working on regulations that would go all the way, purporting to require background checks for all private gun sales. It is hard to see how the ATF can do that "without additional legislation."

Under current federal law, background checks are required only for sales by federally licensed dealers. A rule that the ATF proposed last September would expand the definition of "dealer" to encompass some but not all occasional gun sellers. But even that controversial proposal does not go as far as the plan described by Empower America's sources, who say "the ATF has drafted a 1,300-page document in support of a rule that would effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another by requiring background checks for every sale."

Federal law defines a gun dealer as someone who is "engaged in the business of selling firearms," which until 2022 was defined as "devot[ing] time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." The 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) excised "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" and replaced it with "to predominantly earn a profit."

As the Congressional Research Service explains, that change was "intended to require persons who buy and resell firearms repetitively for profit to be licensed federally as gun dealers, even if they do not do so with 'the principal objective of livelihood.'" According to the amendment's supporters, "there was confusion" about whether the definition of dealers as people "engaged in the business of selling firearms" covered "individuals who bought and resold firearms repetitively for profit, but possibly not as the principal source of their livelihood." The statutory definition still explicitly excludes "a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

The proposed rule that the ATF published in the Federal Register on September 8 addresses what it means to be "'engaged in the business' as a dealer in firearms." Previous proposals considered by the Obama administration and pitched by Vice President Kamala Harris when she ran against Biden in the 2020 presidential primaries would have deemed someone a "dealer" if he sold more than a specified number of firearms in a year. But "rather than establishing a minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold," the ATF says, "this rule proposes to clarify that, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, a person will be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms" if he meets any of several criteria.

Someone would be presumptively considered a dealer, for example, if he "sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms." Likewise if he "spends more money or its equivalent on purchases of firearms for the purpose of resale than the person's reported taxable gross [income] during the applicable period of time." Or if he "repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms" within 30 days after buying them, repetitively sells guns that are "new" or "like new" in the original packaging, or repetitively sells guns of "the same or similar kind" and "type."

Some of these categories, especially the last one, could conflict with the statutory exclusion of collectors and hobbyists. And the ATF adds that "the activities set forth in these rebuttable presumptions are not exhaustive of the conduct that may show that, or be considered in determining whether, a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms." It says "a person would not be presumed to be engaged in the business requiring a license as a dealer when the person transfers firearms only as bona fide gifts, or occasionally sells firearms only to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for their personal collection or hobby, unless their conduct also demonstrates a predominant intent to earn a profit."

That "predominant intent to earn a profit" criterion, which is supposed to conform with the change made by the BSCA, potentially extends the definition of "dealer" to encompass the collectors and hobbyists that Congress explicitly sought to protect. In essence, says Independence Institute gun policy expert David Kopel, the ATF is "purporting to require anyone who sells a firearm for a profit, ever," to obtain a dealer's license.

The plan that Empower Oversight describes would go even further. If it would in fact cover "every sale," it would not matter whether the seller made money, let alone whether that was his "predominant intent." That "seems like something that is legally impossible," Kopel says.

It seems legally impossible because the only way to expand the federal background check requirement "without additional legislation" is by treating more sellers as dealers and requiring them to obtain licenses. The ATF claims the BSCA gave it the authority to do that. But that law plainly did not give it the authority to simply decree that anyone who buys a gun has to pass a background check.

States that notionally mandate "universal background checks" do so through laws that require private sellers to complete transactions via federally licensed dealers. Research suggests those requirements are widely flouted by gun owners who either are unaware of the law or object to the cost and inconvenience that compliance entails. In any event, this option is not available to the ATF "without additional legislation."

Empower Oversight's description of the ATF's reported plan only adds to the puzzle. It refers to "a 1,300-page document in support of a rule that would effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another by requiring background checks for every sale." The ATF's entire rule elucidating its proposed definition of "engaged in the business," including the agency's legal rationale, is just 31 pages. What could the ATF possibly have to say on this subject that would take 1,300 pages, and how could a document of any length get around the statutory exemption for collectors and hobbyists? If the ATF is planning to "effectively ban private sales," that could be accomplished only by requiring those collectors and hobbyists to be licensed as dealers, which flagrantly contradicts the treatment mandated by Congress.

Empower Oversight says "the document's drafting is reportedly being overseen" by ATF Senior Policy Counsel Eric Epstein. On Wednesday, the group's president, Tristan Leavitt, sent Attorney General Merrick Garland and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach a Freedom of Information Act request for relevant records, including emails to or from Epstein; communications among the ATF, the Justice Department, and the White House regarding Biden's executive order; and communications about "regulating or banning the sale of firearms between private individuals."

In his letter to Garland and Dettelbach, Leavitt notes the statutory and constitutional issues such a plan would raise. "Such an expansive rule that treats all private citizens the same as federal firearms licensees would circumvent the separation of powers in the Constitution, which grants 'all legislative Powers' to Congress while requiring that the President 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'" he says. "To the extent such a rule prevents the private sale of firearms, it would also clearly violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'"

Biden has not been shy about trying to rewrite the law in pursuit of his gun control agenda, as illustrated by ATF rules dealing with pistol braces and "ghost guns," which take a page from the Trump administration's unilateral ban on bump stocks. But treating all gun sellers "the same as federal firearms licensees" would not only require an implausible reading of a supposedly ambiguous statute. It would fly in the face of clearly expressed congressional intent.

"Like Biden's student debt bailout plan, such a sweeping rule seems almost certain to be struck down in the courts," Leavitt says on X (formerly Twitter). "It's thus hard to view it as anything other than a cynical [play] to energize his base in a presidential election year."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Politicians Need To Stop Pretending the National Debt Is Sustainable

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. He is the author, most recently, of Beyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives (Prometheus Books, September 2).

Gun Controlfirearms regulationfirearms policyFirearms LawGun OwnersExecutive PowerExecutive orderExecutive overreachSeparation of PowersRule of lawSecond AmendmentGun RightsBATFJoe BidenCongressBiden Administration
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (276)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

    I can't wait for this to backfire spectacularly. If everyone is required to get an FFL then NO ONE will be background checked, because FFL to FFL transfers don't require a check.

    1. Brett Bellmore   1 year ago

      Except for the catch-22: Back during the Clinton administration they drove all the "mom and pop" firearms dealers, who worked out of their homes, out of business, by mandating that you had to have separate place of business to qualify for a FFL. No statutory basis for this, they just up and regulated the requirement into place to cut down on the number of FFLs.

      So everybody CAN'T get an FFL, you'd have to have a separate storefront to qualify.

      1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago (edited)

        Plenty of “kitchen table” FFLs still around, IIRC the Clinton-era thing was mandating a certain amount of annual sales for a license, which they seem to be undoing with this new rule.

        1. Unable2Reason   1 year ago

          A relative of mine retired his "kitchen table" FFL about 10 years ago, well after Clinton. Clinton did cause him to be hassled more but they didn't get rid of him.

      2. Bruce Hayden   1 year ago

        This could be great. Currently, if you buy a gun online, you need to have it shipped to a local FFL, which can then transfer it to you when you pass the background check. Imagine being able to take delivery yourself!!!

      3. Agammamon   1 year ago

        There's no mandate that you have to have a separate place of business - tons of FFL's in AZ that operate out of the home.

        What lost you your license is not doing sufficient volume of business that the ATF figured you just had the license to facilitate personal transfers.

      4. Miles Fortis   1 year ago

        I had such a 'kitchen table' FFL until 2005, when I voluntarily gave it up because I had taken a new job that made it logistically impossible to continue.
        I never had experienced any problems during Clintoon's time in the oral office.

      5. B G   1 year ago

        Does that include Type 3 and Type 6 FFLs?

        Seems like all you'd really need to qualify for a Type 6 would be a reloading bench, and maybe some notion of selling some ammo as a side-hustle. For $10/year ($30 for 3 years, really), it'd pay for itself in DROS fees if you only buy one gun per year.

        Type 3 is similar in cost. Hard to say how they'd prove anyone claiming to be a "collector" (or planning to start a collection) isn't one.

    2. Rob Misek   1 year ago

      The founders clearly recognized the requirement to demonstrate both proficiency and responsibility as a prerequisite to the right to bear arms.

      Why don’t you?

      A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Are you simply going to ignore the importance of the preamble? Is there so much meaningless prattle in the constitution?

      1. Ron   1 year ago

        there is no requirement in the constitution that people be proficient at anything. the people have the right to bear arms. only those in the militia need to be organized. all citizens "the people" have the right to bear arms not just the militia

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          To be fair, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to have a standing army. A standing navy yes, but not army. The people were the militia, would could be called up for two years at a time.
          Fast forward to today, and we've got a standing army that's funded by a defense appropriations bill every two years.
          Do we still need a militia? No. Probably not.
          However why would the government, as in the people with the monopoly on the initiation of violence, need to amend the Constitution to arm themselves? Doesn't seem very logical.
          That's why I see the the pieces separated by the comma as two different things.

          1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            Do we still need a militia? No. Probably not.

            Texans might disagree.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              I’m in Michigan and I disagree.

          2. damikesc   1 year ago

            "Do we still need a militia? No. Probably not."

            Governments getting a little "Let's remove some rights" has never happened.

            The Second Amendment was not designed to protect the government. It was designed for protection against the government.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              In context "the militia" was the fighters that the government would call upon when force was needed. And it happened. Shit, the first president called upon the militia to suppress people unhappy about the nation's first major tax. Intended to pay for Revolutionary War debt, and we still pay federal taxes on liquor.

              It wasn't people uprising against the government. Quite the opposite.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                I implore you. Anything you think you know, stop, look up the topic, ruminate on it, then post.

                https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/03/20/a-short-history-of-the-militia-in-the-united-states/

                Militias in the US predate the federal government. The states have always maintained a force of militia to protect the states.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Of history, warfare, leadership, and alcohol

                  That's the best you can come up with?

                2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  I'm not going to read your stupid link.

                  Yes duuuh militias predate the federal government. No one but your strawman said they didn't.

                  Militia was the army, basically. Able-bodied, armed men who would answer the call to organize and fight. In absence of an army, that's who did what needed to be done.

                  1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    Intentional ignorance noted.

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Keep ignoring what I say and arguing against your imagination.

                    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      I read what you said. Why I tried to help and you refused the help.

                      I'm not the one confused by militia as being a state or government militia.

                    3. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Help? You’ve declared yourself to be forever hostile. I will never mistake any action of yours for help.

              2. damikesc   1 year ago

                "In context “the militia” was the fighters that the government would call upon when force was needed."

                It really was not.

                The people writing it had just had to form a militia to remove the shackles of an overzealous government upon them. They were not going to retroactively make their action illegal.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

                  Then why was the militia called by the government, not against it?

                  1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                    Pssst. There is a link you chose to ignore just above.

                    I mean even just thinking of 4th grade civics... who was the government in the revolutionary War? Who did the militia fight for? Lol.

                  2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                    You're confused about how terms have changed in their usage. Firstly, the "militia" is comprised of all military aged males in the states who are physically fit for service. Secondly, "Regulated" means properly armed, equipped, and trained.

                    So, read differently, that preamable phrase could be read, "A well-armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

                    The goal of the second amendment isn't to have a militia, it's to have the people bearing arms.

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

                      The goal of the second amendment isn’t to have a militia, it’s to have the people bearing arms.

                      The part before the comma is about a militia, the part after the comma is about the people. The first part is moot, because we have a standing army. The second part still stands.

                      edit: What would happen if there was another Whiskey Rebellion? Who would be called up to suppress it? State Police? National Guard? Army? The militia? Probably not the militia.

                    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      2nd attempt.

                      Since the founding of the United States of America, local militias have played an important role in its defense and security. Bolstered by the Founding Father’s concerns about maintaining a large standing army and preserved within the Constitution, the concept of the citizen soldier has since become ingrained in American culture and government.
                      .
                      Currently, 23 states and territories have modern militias. As of 2005, these militias had a force strength of approximately 14,000 individuals nationwide.[1] Most commonly known as State Defense Forces (SDFs) or state militias, these forces are distinct from the Reserves and the National Guard in that they serve no federal function. In times of both war and peace, SDFs remain solely under the control of their governors, allowing the governors to deploy them easily and readily in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.
                      ...
                      Thus, in 1775, despite the colonies’ long reliance on militias to defend their territories, the Continental Congress created the Continental Army, the nation’s first standing military force.

                      https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/the-21st-century-militia-state-defense-forces-and-homeland-security

                      5 minutes if research would help you from demonstrating the ignorance you rely on.

                    3. b-civil   1 year ago

                      I think the phrase “well regulated “ needs to be used here in this discussion of militias. That implies something about their expectations of “the people.”
                      Having said that, I don’t think this regulation will ever come to light. If it does it will be absolutely destroyed by the Supreme Court; it’s a tempest in a teapot.

                    4. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Jesse, you mean a militia is a way that people organize the equivalent of an army?
                      That’s what I’ve been saying. Your blind hatred keeps you telling me I’m wrong while agreeing. I might feel that way, but I don’t always follow my feelings.

                      Grow up.

                    5. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                      Sarc, are you truly retarded? We can read what you said. It is in this thread. Stop drinking man.

                      You keep referring to them as of the government because youre an uneducated dumbass.

                    6. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

                      You keep referring to them as of the government because youre an uneducated dumbass.

                      I said they are called up by government, not that they are government.

                      I honestly believe you'd suffer a medical emergency if you told the truth. Your nose would turn inside out and puncture your brain.

                    7. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Please bookmark this to show how dishonest and stupid you are.

          3. B G   1 year ago

            Why would a group of people who'd just overthrown their previous "rightful" government create a founding document which actually gave their new government a declared "monopoly on initiation of violence"

            How would the phrase "necessary for the security of a free state" not be there in reference to the need for a potential counter-force to the established authorities? Contrary to what grampa Joe has claimed, it was clearly legal for private citizens to own cannons, and even warships in the early decades of the Constitutional Government; Congress used to issue "letters of Marque and Reprisal" authorizing such citizens to engage in Privateering using their privately owned ships and cannons.

            1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

              Why would any intelligent person want irresponsible and untrained people to carry guns?

              1. B G   1 year ago

                Why would people who regularly hunt for food and grew up being taught to shoot and handle weapons by their parents from childhood think that only State-sanctioned formal training with certified (and possibly government-employed?) instructors be the only way for someone to be "trained and responsible"?

                The idea that it's somehow "reposnsible parenting" to have children who get to adulthood without any knowledge of firearms not originating from action movies is a relatively recent development, and is mostly endemic to the left.

                Seems like you shouldn't need this explained to you, though. Growing up around Hayden Lake, Idaho, I'd bet that you were probably taught the rules of proper gun safety before the age of 9 (and took your turns at the range shooting silhouettes with a star of David in place of the "10 ring" by age 11)

                1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                  Well we aren’t living in the past and we need laws that represent our current environment.

                  1. B G   1 year ago

                    If new laws are what's needed, then make new laws.

                    Pretending that the meaning of the original laws has somehow changed, or that the intentions of the people who wrote them was somehow based in their knowledge of the future is as nonsensical as most of the rest of your ideas.

                    1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      Denying the “well regulated militia” preamble in 2a is your delusion.

        2. Rob Misek   1 year ago

          You are simply ignoring the importance of the preamble.

          Do you also think the rest of the constitution is meaningless prattle?

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            I'd suggest rereading the majority decision in Heller before you spout off like an idiot.

            1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

              A contrary opinion doesn’t refute the clear meaning of the preamble.

              Heller simply said that being in a militia wasn’t necessary directly disagreeing with the literal wording of 2a. I agree.

              But the intent of the preamble remains clear. That the responsibility and proficiency demonstrated by a well regulated militia is both necessary for the security of a free state AND the right to bear arms.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                shall not be infringed

                Reread that, Nazi. It's all you need to know regarding the amendment.

              2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                That the responsibility and proficiency demonstrated by a well regulated militia is both necessary for the security of a free state AND the right to bear arms.

                That's like claiming a government's army need permission to have guns. It doesn't pass the smell test.

              3. B G   1 year ago

                "A contrary opinion doesn’t refute the clear meaning of the preamble."

                When that opinion represents the interpretation of the majority of the justices of the US Supreme Court, it carries the force of law, regardless of what you happen to think.

                Kind of like how the 1st Amendment would preclude your notion of making "lying' (by any definition, especially your nonsensical fever-dream), and that the 5th Amendment puts the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal case which would invalidate your fantasy of putting it on the accused in your imaginary "honesty" trials.

                It would be more accurate to state that your lunacy doesn't invalidate the established laws of the United States. As much as putting a requirement of "proficiency and responsibility" on the exercise of 1A rights as well, since it would spare the world from being exposed to your gibberish, that's not how things work so instead we're all forced to endure your rantings.

                1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                  I value and share the truth, reality that demonstrates justice, right and wrong.

                  Sometimes the law is right and sometimes wrong. You probably supported abortion until RvW was struck down. Now you’re against it eh? How does it feel to flip flop like a toilet seat? That’s all you.

                  You’re similarly confused why there are laws against criminals or children carrying guns. Another affront to 2a eh?

                  How conflicted you must be by the concept of perjury, fraud and coercion. Another affront to 1a eh?

                  Your feeble mindedness is the reason why to repeatedly try and fail to refute anything that I say.

                  Thats all you demonstrate here.

                  1. B G   1 year ago

                    "Sometimes the law is right and sometimes wrong. You probably supported abortion until RvW was struck down. Now you’re against it eh? How does it feel to flip flop like a toilet seat? That’s all you."

                    I was pro-choice before the Dunn decision, and remain so now. I'm also aware that the ruling that "struck down RvW" didn't ban abortions (they're still completely legal in all 4 of the States where I've lived for more than a year of my life) any more than the original Roe ruling legalized them without limitation. Beyond that, I'm aware that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who voted to uphold Roe at every opportunity) actually thought that the legal reasoning behind it was potentially unsound and that it could be overturned as a result (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/20/ruth-bader-ginsburg-conservatism-418821).

                    Of course, those are the kinds of objective facts which you have no real interest in since they run counter to the fabricated assumptions which you wish to believe are "truth", not to mention being completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

                    Anyone with a functioning mind and an understanding of the actual rules of logic might well question why someone who's so fond of the phrase "properly applied logic" would combine multiple fallacies in using a "strawman" case as the basis for an ad hominem attack, but since you're "satisfied with the optics" of your prodigious gibbering, I'll leave it to future readers to make their own call as to who in this discussion is and isn't "feebleminded".

                    1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      “ “A contrary opinion doesn’t refute the clear meaning of the preamble.”

                      When that opinion represents the interpretation of the majority of the justices of the US Supreme Court, it carries the force of law, regardless of what you happen to think.”

                      You’re the fuckwit who thinks you can refute correctly applied logic and science with a contrary legal ruling.

                    2. B G   1 year ago

                      One more time for those just tuning in. You wouldn't recognize actual logic if it had its hand up your ass and was working you like a ventriloquist's dummy.

                      I have a working understanding of logic, and at this point have seen enough examples of what you call "correctly applied logic" to be pretty clear on the difference between the two.

                      If someone were to "correctly apply" a screwdriver along the lines of what you think constitutes "correctly applied logic", they'd be banging the handle end of the tool into the threads of the fastener.

                    3. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      And you still haven’t refuted anything that I’ve said.

                  2. B G   1 year ago

                    "How conflicted you must be by the concept of perjury, fraud and coercion. Another affront to 1a eh?"

                    Why would that be the case? Perjury laws pertain to knowingly making false statements in a context where one has sworn to tell the truth, which amounts to willingly accepting a particular restriction on their speech within a particular context. Fraud and coercion specifically involve knowingly using false statements to intentionally cause material damage to someone, those laws criminalize the intention to do harm just like assault laws do; the fact that in one instance speech is the tool used and in the other instance it's some kind of physical weapon is happenstance.

                    Even an "absolutist" take on 1A doesn't equate to thinking that fraud should be legal any more than a similar take on 2A equates to a belief that murder should be legal. Deliberately inflicting harm on others is appropriate to criminalize regardless of the means involved.

                    By contrast, your fever dream of criminalizing any and all false statements, especially in combination with putting the burden of proving every statement on the person saying it and making simply being incorrect or misinformed as much of a crime as deliberately lying is absolutely an affront to nearly any interpretation of 1A.

                    1. Rob Misek   1 year ago (edited)

                      You’ve been raised, brainwashed in a satanic religion that advocates lying.

                      People, even Jews I imagine, know when they can prove what they’re saying is true, and when they can’t.

                      I have no problem with liars like you lying until you’re blue in the face, as long as you preface each with the admission that you don’t know the truth about what you’re saying.

                      Then your corrupt attachment to lying will demonstrate to anyone your feeble mind and you will be properly ignored.

                      Criminalizing lying doesn’t restrict free speech, only the lies that cause harm.

                      When lying is criminalized, you’re going to need to find a new religion Jew.

                    2. B G   1 year ago

                      You claim that Christianity is the "religion of truth". Yet it worships a man who was raised in the same "satanic religion which advocates lying" (he was most likely raised in a far more orthodox practice of the religion than I was, in fact); I'm as inherently trustworthy as your chosen Messiah, as measured by your own standard.

                      Provide concrete, empirical evidence that there was actually an "immaculate conception" by a woman who had never had sex, and that her child was actually resurrected three days after death. If you can't provide such physical evidence, then you are a liar raised in a false religion.

                      Written accounts aren't going to be sufficient in this case since every one of them was written by someone who was also raised in the Jewish religion (and therefore, completely unreliable by your own standard).

                      These are your rules, not mine. At some point, you really should subject the fictions you choose to blindly believe to the same scrutiny that you're so eager to apply to the everyday speech of everyone around you. That's actual logic, properly applied.

                    3. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      I claim that Christianity is “the religion of truth” simply because in Christianity, god, is defined as “the spirit of truth”.

                      Can’t get much more truthy than that.

                      You Jews have your Kol Nidre plan to lie.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        IIRC, the Nazis banned gun ownership as well.

        1. Its_Not_Inevitable   1 year ago

          And Misek just reminded us that his Party hasn't changed its stance.

        2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          IIRC, the Nazis banned gun ownership as well before.

          Fixed it.

        3. Longtobefree   1 year ago

          No grasshopper, they did not.

        4. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Found it. Nazis and gun control (from 2013).

          https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/

          The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

          In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

          In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

          The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

          SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

          And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

          1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

            I'll see your national review, and raise you Wikipedia:

            In order to comply with the Versailles Treaty, in 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[6] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              Which does not affect nor preempt the article I linked above. It merely explains why Germany had the registry the Nazis could use and abuse in the first place.

              1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

                It really just reinforces your point. Even if you believe the Democrats don't want to disarm everyone, you don't know what other political party might rise to power the future and use otherwise well-intentioned laws in unintended ways.

                1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                  “Well- intentioned “ laws.

      3. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

        A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        Are you simply going to ignore the importance of the preamble?

        Why have the second sentence if it is completely negated by the first?

        1. DesigNate   1 year ago

          Consider the source…

          1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            I consider what the source says.

            1. DesigNate   1 year ago

              I meant you’re replying to Misek, a no shit Nazi totalitarian holocaust denier, so of course he thinks a certain way about the 2nd amendment.

              1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                Jews are the new no shit holocaust deniers, are they not?

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Oh, I get it. Calling the Gaza invasion a holocaust. Irony of holocaust victims doing the same thing. Blah blah blah.
                  *yawn*

                  1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                    Genocide = Holocaust

                    The highest international court in the world thinks Jews are likely committing a genocide in Gaza and are currently deliberating on it.

                    Unless they change the definition of genocide between now and their ruling bibi will be carrying feeble Biden up the steps to the gallows so they can dance together.

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      I'd dispute calling what's happening there a genocide. People are being killed for where they live, not their ethnicity.

                      I don't really care what some self-important court with no enforcement mechanism thinks.

                      Again I dispute calling what's happening a genocide. Mass-murder maybe. But genocide comes from the Greek word genos which means tribe. These are people who were just stuck there after Israel forced itself into existence.

                    2. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      The highest international court in the world has a definition of genocide that both the US and Israel are signatories to.

                      When they are found guilty , they will swing.

                    3. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      “John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.”

                    4. Sevo   1 year ago

                      Misek = fucking Nazi imbecile.

                    5. B G   1 year ago

                      The term "genocide" has been defined down to the point where even you'd have to admit that it was done by the Germans during WW2. Under the definition being applied to current Israeli activity in Gaza (and which much of the left, including the only Jew you think isn't a born liar has been using for a decade or more), the clearing of the Warsaw Ghetto and relocation of its residents to Auchwitz/Birkenau would constitute a genocide, even if you think that the 993k people who were never seen again were secretly sent on an around-the-world luxury cruise rather than being murdered and their bodies incinerated. Under the definition used by the ICJ, merely relocating people away from a particular place would be considered to constitute a "genocide" (as opposed to the original definition which was meant to describe an effort to exterminate a particular ethnic group entirely)

                    6. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      When the bullshit holocaust narrative that stars Jews being gassed is no longer a crime by law to refute in every nation where it allegedly occurred and every person who persecuted anyone or benefited from that lie is brought to justice, I’ll be interested in seeing evidence of a genocide.

                      Just like I want to see every Jew and person helping them committing a holocaust in Gaza swing on the gallows.

      4. Bruce Hayden   1 year ago (edited)

        What is your solution then? The meaning of “Well Regulated” is that the citizens are proficient in their use of their weapons. Are you proposing free ammunition for training purposes? Free range time? I could get behind that. Most ammunition can get pricey. I often train with a Glock G44 because it shoots .22 LR, and has the same form factor as my 9 mm G19. And I often use .40 S&W instead of 10 mm to practice with my G20. Imagine getting free 9 mm to train with my G19 (G17, G19X, G43X), or 10 mm to train with my G20 (and hopefully, this year, G40, and maybe even a 1911 style 10 mm).

        1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

          The cost of bullets, seriously?

          I’d rather be a paraplegic with intelligence than suffer the horror of being as stupid as the people posting here.

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            So we’ll add bullets to the list of topics you’re both smug and stupid about.

            1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

              Have you ever refuted or seen anyone refute anything that I’ve said? If you think so, prove it. A simple link and detailed description of what was refuted will do.

              Smug, maybe. Stupid, well you’d have to refute me first.

              1. Sevo   1 year ago

                You're entirely too stupid to understand that your idiocy (such as it is) has been called bullshit many, many times. If you ever graduate to middle school, you might have learned enough to understand.
                Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.

                1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                  No link, no description.

                  1. Sevo   1 year ago

                    Asshole, it's been handed to you many times and you respond with an incoherent rant.
                    You're entirely too stupid to understand; no one else is. Fuck off and die, lying pile of Nazi shit.

              2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                Well, there's the David Irving quote you have (and continue to?) falsely attributed to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck. Ironically, the lie can be easily seen from a post on Stormfront:

                https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t808720/

                Are you still misusing Irving's quote after I happened upon it a while ago and helpfully brought it to your attention?

                1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                  To my knowledge you have never refuted the referenced quote by Victor Cavendish Bentick which I properly referenced.

                  If you think you can or did, prove it.

                  Irving, who I never quoted, also referrenced Bentick.

                  1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                    You quoted Irving and attributed it to Bentinck.

                    What is your "Bentinck" quote? Feel free to repeat it here, obviously.

                    1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      This is how I refuted you last May, you chose to cut and run then. Have you got anything to add now?

                      ObviouslyNotSpam 1 day ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      Does anyone know if Misek is still peddling that fake Victor Cavendish-Bentinck quote?

                      It’s the one which goes, “‘we have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting about, but don’t we run the risk eventually we are going to be found out and when we are found out the collapse of that lie is going to bring the whole of our psychological warfare down with it? So isn’t it rather time now to let it drift off by itself and concentrate on other lines that we are running.’ Public Record Office Document F0371/34551 revealed by Stephen Mitford Goodson, ‘Inside the South African Reserve Bank’.”

                      In fact, those words were not handwritten on Document F0371/34551, but were spoken in a 1988 speech by none other than disgraced historian David Irving, who was paraphrasing (in the obviously distorted way only a committed antisemite would choose) what Cavendish-Bentinck had written on a 1944 internal memorandum. Many British officials were indeed quite skeptical of the Holocaust rumors going around at that time, Cavendish-Bentinck included, but those were not his words–they were Irving’s.

                      Last I saw, Misek was still denying everything, and therefore, that he had never been refuted.

                      Reply
                      Rob Misek 18 hours ago
                      You admit that Cavendish didn’t think the story of gassing Jews was true.

                      Being the guy creating the holocaust propaganda, that’s significant and all that’s necessary to refute the propaganda.

                      You haven’t proven your claim about different wording in the referenced note by Bentick Irving quoting it years later is irrelevant.

                    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                      The specific challenge you issued was to "refute anything that [you had] said". That's a pretty wide open goal, but as it happens the first statement of yours I checked was that weird quote, which you had offered as evidence of British complicity in the fabrication of the gas chamber "stories".

                      I easily proved that you had attributed David Irving's words to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, which is a falsehood. The citation to "Public Record Office Document F0371/34551" from 1943 is also false, because those words were not uttered by anyone until David Irving spoke them during his Toronto speech in 1988.

                      I don't care what Victor Cavendish-Bentinck thought about Jews or the Holocaust; the only question at issue was whether he had said the (obviously distorted) words that you had put in his mouth. I have no intention of "debating" the Holocaust with you.

                      If you don't think it's fair for me to hold you to your own lofty standards, don't set yourself up for it. You failed to check your source, but apparently repeated the libellous distortion because it suited your purposes, and then declared that you'd never made a mistake.

                      Perhaps it wasn't a mistake?

                    3. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      “I easily proved that you had attributed David Irving’s words to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, “

                      You haven’t proven that.

                      What makes you believe that you have?

                    4. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                      So, you're going with simple denial.

                      (What a shocker that is!)

                    5. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      No, I’m simply saying that you haven’t proven that the referenced note wasn’t handwritten by Bentick in 1943.

                      You have referenced, using STORMFRONT, the fact that Irving referenced it. Thats all you’ve done.

                      Are you commenting on the veracity of that website? YOU are referencing it.

                      The page also clearly states that Bentick said this. Do you consider this truthful as well?

                      “Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, believed that Polish and Jewish sources were unreliable because they had a vested interest in exaggerating German atrocities. Therefore, as late as the summer of 1943, Cavendish-Bentinck opposed the British government to make, at the allied conference in Quebec, a public statement about the systematic gassing of Jews.

                      "It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.

                      Personally, I have never really understood the advantage of the gas chamber over the simple machine gun, or the equally simple starvation method. These stories may or may not be true, but in any event I submit we are putting out a statement on evidence which is far from conclusive, and which we have no means of assessing." [1]

                      On August 27, 1943, Cavendish Bentinck made the following observation:

                      "In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish information regarding German atrocities as "trustworthy". The Poles, and to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up. They seem to have succeeded....

                      I think that we weaken our case against the Germans by publically giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence. These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the stories of employment of human corpses during the last war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda." [2]”

                    6. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                      I'll keep this short. You had claimed Irving's words (‘we have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting about...'), were Bentinck's words. (They were Irving's, disingenuously paraphrasing Bentinck during a speech in 1988.) This was a false attribution on your part, as you have now (effectively) admitted above. Anyone reading this (!) can see that clearly now.

                      I trust that you will no longer use Irving's words and claim they were written by Bentinck? Do you promise?

                    7. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      You keep repeating your unproven claim as if that makes it true.

                      You still have never refuted anything that I’ve said.

                      YOU referenced stormfront.

                      Do you now recognize that Bentick clearly disagreed with allied propaganda that Jews were being killed in gas chambers?

                      He was the guy in charge of propaganda and who opposed the government plan to falsely attribute the gas chamber story victimhood to Jews.

                      When in the future I use this quote or others by Bentick as proof to refute the holocaust narrative, will you agree with me?

                      Or will you simply deny your own reference?

                    8. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                      ...And we're back to denial.

                      "When in the future I use this quote or others by Bentick as proof to refute the holocaust narrative, will you agree with me?"

                      Which quote by Bentinck? Something he actually wrote, or those words spoken by David Irving I proved you put in his mouth?

                      You're acting dumb, but you're not dumb.

                    9. Rob Misek   1 year ago (edited)

                      I’m pleased with the optics.

                      Firstly that rational people will see that you haven’t proven your baseless claim.

                      And secondly, that Bentick, the leading UK propagandists knew that the allies were lying about Jews being gassed during WW2.

                      It’s a win – win.

                    10. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                      I'm glad we've had this opportunity to clarify exactly what you're not refusing to do again.

                      So let's park this illuminating conversation and come back to it the next time you make your usual claim of infallibility, shall we?

                    11. Rob Misek   1 year ago (edited)

                      Absolutely!

                      Being pleased with the optics means that I’ll happily use this dialogue anytime I want to demonstrate that you haven’t refuted anything that I’ve said.

                      Hahaha

                      I say keep Benticks quotes in front of everyone every day.

                      Hahaha

                    12. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                      Indeed you will.

              3. B G   1 year ago

                Your inverted conception of what you call "properly applied logic" (which is analogous to placing the handle end of a screwdriver into contact with the threads of a screw and calling it "proper fastener installation") is so detached from reality, you're either unwilling or unable to comprehend how often your nonsense is refuted.

                The sole advantage you retain is to continue to exist in your own fabricated reality. Perhaps someday someone like a version of Jane Goodall will visit that reality and study its rules so the rest of us might better understand, but for now it just comes across as your having a (putting it kindly) non-traditional relationship to the concepts of objectivity, honesty, and logic among other basic concepts.

                1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                  You’ve never refuted anything that I’ve said.

                  1. B G   1 year ago

                    I've refuted dozens of your nonsensical gibberings. You're just too detached from reality to comprehend when it's happened, not to mention the whole issue of what you think the word "logic" means.

                    1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      Prove it fuckwit.

                      Specifically describe and link to what you think you’ve refuted or demonstrate once again that you’re a lying waste of skin.

                      I’ll rub your face in your lies like I always do.

                    2. B G   1 year ago

                      Anyone actually reading any exchange you're involved in has seen your lunacy refuted dozens of times over. Anyone not reading those isn't reading this, either.

                      There's no need to cite any examples. Readers capable of coherent thought are well aware of the truth of the past, and there's nothing I could possibly do that you wouldn't just deny yet again. I probably couldn't convince you not to substitute dogshit for toothpaste, even after you'd already tried it twice, so it's wasting everyone's time to even try.

                    3. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                      Hahaha, I didn’t think so.

                      Looks like I’m rubbing your face in the fact that you’re a lying waste of skin again.

                      That might not mean anything to a lying jew, but it does for people who value truth.

          2. B G   1 year ago

            "I’d rather be a paraplegic with intelligence...."

            On bad car wreck and you could be halfway to that goal.

            1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

              You’re pathetic.

              Hahaha.

              1. B G   1 year ago

                Pathetic would be if I cared what you think of me.

                Just be careful if we ever cross paths IRL now that I know you want to see me and half my extended family murdered for our ethic identity. You'll learn the hard way that's something that's easier in your dream world than in the reality which you pretend to hold in such regard.

                1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                  “ now that I know you want to see me and half my extended family murdered for our ethic identity”

                  You can’t prove this latest lie of yours because you’re nothing more than a lying waste of skin.

                  I wonder though, if you or your extended family will swing along with bibi for committing crimes against humanity in Gaza.

                  1. Rob Misek   1 year ago (edited)
                2. B G   1 year ago

                  You stated that you want to see every Jew "swing from the gallows" along with anyone helping them to do something that you've chosen to see as "genocide", despite your repeated denial that one of the two historical endeavors which that word was created to describe ever actually happened (not to mention your refusal to acknowledge that there's been an effort to since re-define the word in order to make it fit a very different situation).

                  It's little wonder that you're then choosing to side with terrorist organizations which are also made up largely of people who think that the accounts from tens of thousands of witnesses, the confessions of the people who carried out the orders to do it, and the official records of the German Government at the time are all fabricated and have sworn to kill every Jew on the planet or die trying.

                  1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                    Again you lie Kol Nidre boy.

                    Again I rub your face in it.

                    Anyone can see that I said

                    “ I want to see every Jew and person helping them committing a holocaust in Gaza swing on the gallows”

                    Jews are the terrorists on trial for genocide fuckwit.

                    Hahaha

        2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago (edited)

          The meaning of “Well Regulated” is that the citizens are proficient in their use of their weapons.

          No, it isn’t. That’s not what “regulated” meant in those days in that context. It meant uniformly or adequately equipped. That sense of the word still survives in contemporary English in the use of the word “regulars” to refer to uniformed soldiers with government-issued arms and equipment, as opposed to “irregulars”, which we would call “guerillas”. The use of “well regulated” in the 2nd expressed the intent of having militia members show up when called with firearms suitable for military use, rather than just with knives, pitchforks, and axes.

          1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

            How does one achieve uniformity of firearm use without certification in training, proficiency, and certification in behaviour, responsibility?

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

              By buying the gun? Does a certification make one a better shot or something?

              1. VULGAR MADMAN   1 year ago

                Dude, Nazis are dumb.

                1. Sevo   1 year ago

                  And Misek is beyond "dumb".

              2. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                Never had a certificate eh?

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  You avoided the question. Do you need a gold star for affirmation?

                  1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

                    My initial post answered the question but you’re too stupid to recognize it.

                    Being considered “well regulated “ is a certification for proficiency and responsibility.

                    Any paper certificate, is merely proof of that to show anyone.

                    Never had a certificate either eh?

          2. KHP54   1 year ago (edited)

            You are right to object to Misek’s miserable nonsense, but I don’t think your argument here is quite correct.

            “Well regulated” as a phrase really does mean “properly functioning” or “effective”, rather than professional military versus others (as the unadorned noun “regulars” would.)

            The real problem with the claim that the prefatory clause is some kind of restriction is that (1) such clauses are never restrictions, they are explanations or justifications, (2) the following clause that actually contains what the amendment requires or forbids, refers to “The people” and not “The militia”, and finally (3) if the federal government were perfectly free to prohibit novices from having firearms, how can they be expected to practice enough to achieve the status of “well regulated”?

            This interpretation would allow the feds a complete and easy and run around the entire intent of the amendment.

            1. KHP54   1 year ago (edited)

              Feds: You have no right to keep and bear arms until you can demonstrate that you are part of a properly-functioning militia.

              Us: I don’t think that’s what the law says, but okay – – how do we get to that status?

              Feds: Catch-22! You can’t!!!!!

            2. Rob Misek   1 year ago

              Justification?

              Well regulated is a justification eh?

      5. Torguud   1 year ago (edited)

        A well-regulated militia does not mean a militia controlled (regulated – 21st century) by the state, it means well-functioning or effective (18th century). Loading muskets was difficult, a milita that could do this well were essential to protect the state.

        1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

          Loading muskets was difficult. Hahaha

          1. B G   1 year ago

            Doing anything quickly while being shot at gets to be a lot more difficult than doing it when you're not amped up and hands shaking from adrenaline.

            I'd be willing to assist in creating part of that context for you if you'd care to learn first-hand.

            1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

              You’re pathetic and you still haven’t refuted anything that I’ve said.

              Hahaha

      6. jimc5499   1 year ago

        Who determines "proficiency"?
        Think it through. You have the "by any means necessary crowd" coming up with bullshit lawsuits.
        Suppose they make a law that you have to pass a class taught by a "licensed firearms instructor"? I could almost support that. The reason that I can't is who certifies the instructor? Who protects the instructor? Who determines what needs to be taught?
        At any point, the certification could be made too expensive or impossible to obtain. The "instructors" could be sued out of existence for the "actions" of their students. The certification could be made impossible to obtain.

        Nothing these clowns do would surprise me. You just have to look at New York's and California's concealed carry laws to prove it.

        1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          You have to demonstrate the ability to shoot a barking dog dead while a Black woman is screaming at you and children are crying.

        2. Rob Misek   1 year ago

          This isn’t rocket science or uncharted territory.

          Every position of importance especially those where you hold someone’s life in your hands requires certification and periodic recertification and sometimes the certification is graduated based on the level of responsibility you wish to assume.

          Just because you’re incapable of recognizing reality doesn’t mean others can’t.

      7. Miles Fortis   1 year ago

        There is no such fucking require except in your anti-civil rights, wanna-be dictator puerile fantasies.
        In fact the Bill of Rights own preamble makes clear that the government - not the citizenry- is what's to be restricted.
        You insult our intelligence with such easily refuted drivel.

        1. Rob Misek   1 year ago (edited)

          You’re arguing that the constitution guarantees unrestricted irresponsibility and recklessness.

          It’s either that or laws which restrict that behaviour, regardless who’s doing it.

          So be clear, what you want.

          I choose laws so I can enjoy freedoms responsibly and proficiently to also minimize the risks to others.

    3. Bruce Hayden   1 year ago

      But getting an FFL license does. Which may be kinda a good thing. Right now, some states allow their CCW permits to replace the required NICS check (my MT CCW permit has a NICS number printed on it). This makes purchasing firearms much faster. Last year, I went in to purchase a couple of handguns. The clerk pointed to the big sign that they had out that the NICS system was (again) down. I showed him my CCW license, and had the guns in about 20 minutes.

      Yes, FFL licenses also cost money. But when Imposed on the general public, would likely be limited in price, due to 2nd Amdt issues. Moreover, ATF dawdling issuing the license would be much more suspect under the 2nd Amdt. The FBI has enough problems handling the volume of NICS checks they have faced these last couple years - imagine the normally unresponsive ATF adding a layer on top of that. Plus, they would have to greatly expand their appeals process, but under the shadow of the 2nd Amdt (it’s a very different Constitutional question, when permits are denied to engage in interstate commerce, as contrasted with exercising an enumerated fundamental right). Of course - that brings up another issue - ATF rules are based on Congress’ power to regulate Interstate Commerce, but circumscribed by the 2nd Amdt. Universal FFL licenses would likely cross out of regulating Interstate Commerce…

      Then there is the problem of gun owners losing their FFL registration book, when their boat capsizes, losing all of their guns.

    4. Bubba Jones   1 year ago

      As if getting an FFL doesn't require a background check?

      1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

        If that was the goal then once you buy one gun with a background check you would never need to be background checked again, since they already did one. It would clearly be a failure of what they intend to accomplish here.

        1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          So...TSA Precheck; but guns.

    5. Agammamon   1 year ago

      Here's the thing - ATF is not required to issue FFL's. And they refuse to do so to 'kitchen sink' businesses - people who want a license specifically to facilitate personal transfers.

      So requiring everyone to get a license, but refusing to issue licenses to anyone who isn't a 'proper' business will be the end result.

      1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

        I suspect courts will nail them one way or the other. They can't say "you aren't allowed to sell a gun because that would make you a business and you need a license for that" then turn around and say "you can't have a license because you aren't a business."

        One or the other, either I'm a business and should be able to get a license, or I'm not a business and don't need a license.

        1. Agammamon   1 year ago

          You won't need to be a licensed FFL to sell guns though - you'll just have to contract with one.

          So you can be in the business of selling guns without being an FFL in this case.

          1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

            Or...hear me out - do not comply.

          2. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

            That's not a legal way to operate though. If the ATF defines you as "being in the business" you have to have your own license, not buying and transferring through another FFL.

            1. Agammamon   1 year ago

              No, you don't. Not in the way they will interpret this.

              Or - it will be as I said - you're 'in the business' but ATF won't issue you a license (because there's no requirement for them to do so) so you better stop or we'll throw you in a cage.

              There is no world in which this comes out with a good ending.

        2. B G   1 year ago

          If it weren't for circular logic, many authoritarian laws would have no logic at all.

          Have you ever read any Joseph Heller?

    6. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

      I can’t wait for this to backfire spectacularly. If everyone is required to get an FFL then NO ONE will be background checked, because FFL to FFL transfers don’t require a check.

      It will not backfire.

      Universal background checks are already the law of the land in my state.

      1. B G   1 year ago

        "Universal background checks are already the law of the land in my state."

        So is prohibition for the purchase and possession of heroin, cocaine, meth, and any number of synthetic opiates and other psychoactive chemicals without a prescription.

        Which of those drugs would be truly unable to obtain within 45 minutes in any major city if you decided to do so?

  2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

    Just remember that for all the Democrats and others with TDS claimed that Trump would be dictatorially, Biden and his handlers are.

    1. Truthteller1   1 year ago

      What is wrong with this administration, it's as if they have the mind of a toddler. Completely detached from reality.

      1. Nazi-Chipping Warlock   1 year ago

        I agree, Biden has the mind of a toddler. But only on good days.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          But toddlers don't have the keyboard skills to post mean tweets so he's got that going for him.

      2. Bubba Jones   1 year ago

        Are you kidding? This is brilliant. His voters will love this.

        1. Sevo   1 year ago

          All five of them.

      3. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        Only their figurehead has the mind of a toddler. The people actually in charge know exactly what their doing.

    2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

      And just remember Trump signed an Executive Order banning bump stocks. Totally different and not dictatorially in the slightest.

      But yes Fuck Joe Biden - piece of shit turned it up to 11.

      1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

        Though not a good move, banning bump stocks stops doesn't in anyway impact the purchase of an actual firearm.

        1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          So EO's on magazines, scopes, barrel shrouds, cheek rests, muzzle brakes, flash suppressors, etc are simply "not a good move"?

          1. DesigNate   1 year ago

            None of those items fundamentally affects your ability to keep or bear arms. It would still be a totalitarian dick move to EO them like Trump did with bump stocks*.

            *This is one of the things he did that actually favors the people that screech about him, but they, by and large, agree with doing it so they’re always quiet about it.

    3. JesseAz   1 year ago

      I have it on good true libertarian authority that Biden recognizes the Constitution.

      And despite having a 4 year record of Trump, I guarantee you he will be super mecha Hitler if re-elected.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        This good true libertarian authority, The One True Libertarian®?

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Yes.

        2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

          HE TOOK A TEST!

          1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

            More testing needed.

    4. In Canis Credimus   1 year ago

      You GQP don't even know what a dictator is. If he was a dictator he would have long ago arrested every member of congress and taken them to the gallows. This is what Trump plans and he hasn't made any secret of it.

  3. Use the Schwartz   1 year ago

    So this is about getting their vig?

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      No, it's about winning the election.

      1. Use the Schwartz   1 year ago

        I'm not convinced.

        The Dem base doesn't need "energizing," it is the vast middle that is not in love with Biden. This EO won't help.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          The problem is, the Dem base, the "elites" believe this to be what everyone wants, in spite of it only being popular with their minority.

  4. Truthteller1   1 year ago

    What is wrong with this administration, it's as if they have the mind of a toddler. Completely detached from reality.

    1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Go read the democrat party platform.
      None of this is a surprise.

  5. Nazi-Chipping Warlock   1 year ago

    I hate these fucking assholes so much. If they don't like America, they should just go somewhere else. They might feel more at home in the UK, given their dislike of firearms.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      Europe has fallen. The USA is the last stand of any trace of republicanism and human rights. When we're taken out, they'll have the world.

  6. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

    1300 pages?!?

    Empower Oversight's description of the ATF's reported plan only adds to the puzzle. It refers to "a 1,300-page document in support of a rule that would effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another by requiring background checks for every sale."

    What is it, something where the first letter in each paragraph spells out the root password to the Constitution?

    1. Ron   1 year ago

      its probably like California's SB2 gun law filled with bogus studies to prove their intended outcome

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      The whistleblower knows how long the document is, and knows what's in it, but didn't think it might have been a good idea to leak it.

  7. Quo Usque Tandem   1 year ago

    "If I'd had the votes, I'd have said turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America."

    This is their [Democratic] ultimate goal as Feinstein clearly stated. Of course none of this in any way impacts actual criminals, just the law abiding who want to remain law abiding. Of course we are their real enemy for having the nerve to not go along with their agendas.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      It's the Anarcho-Tyranny plan. Leave the criminals armed; disarm everyone else.

  8. TJJ2000   1 year ago

    Democrats elected a Hitler and they don't even know it because they're too busy blame-shifting and projecting to take notice.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      You're being too charitable. They elected Hitler because that's what they want.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        +

      2. Longtobefree   1 year ago

        Hitler lost the 1932 election to Hindenburg.
        Hitler was appointed chancellor, not elected.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Although Hitler lost the presidential election, his party took the largest (but not majority) share in the 1932 federal elections.

          37.3% in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election

          33.1% in November: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1932_German_federal_election

          This is part of why Hitler was appointed chancellor.

        2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          By "Hitler", I meant Biden.

  9. Djmcg55   1 year ago

    One again Joe is demonstrating his total lack of regard for the Constitution and the limitation of power it dictates.

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      An alleged Executive Order no one can produce is totally the same thing as "terminating" the Constitution.

  10. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    Fuck Joe Biden

    1. DesigNate   1 year ago

      Fuck Joe Biden.

      1. Quo Usque Tandem   1 year ago

        FJB

    2. Bruce Hayden   1 year ago

      Or, as I often abbreviate: FJB.

    3. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      Let's go fuck Brandon.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Wait what?

      2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        Joe Biden has entered the chat.

  11. sarcasmic   1 year ago

    Giving up your 4A is a common license requirement.
    Having an FFL means that at any time the ATF can come in and make sure you're in compliance. Usually that means your workshop and or store. Doesn't mean your home unless that's your place of business, and even then you can do it all in your basement without giving them access to your living area.
    If you need an FFL to have a gun in your home, what's stopping the ATF from looking under your bed?

    1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Don't read the fine print on your hunting or fishing licsense.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        Which hunting/fishing license for which State?

      2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

        Seriously?

  12. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

    Biden lacks the power to secure the border without congress, yet he can somehow undo the 2nd amendment by decree.

  13. mad.casual   1 year ago

    The 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) excised "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" and replaced it with "to predominantly earn a profit."

    Huh. A la the Villarreal case in Texas, lets say Massachusetts or some other state has a law on the books saying private entities cannot buy, sell, or trade guns with agents of the state for profit, the promise of profit, or fame/notoriety. Let's then say a good friend of the family who's a cop lends me a gun and points me in the direction of a mostly peaceful protest and I get arrested and released for breaking the "no buy/sell/trade guns with state agents for profit or fame" law.

    Clearly a 2A (or 1A) violation or no?

    Actually really serious kind of question here. It's, of course, largely fictional as I'd only put the odds at 80% that gun control advocates wouldn't do something this stupid/inconsistent with their behavior. But, both sides; 'shall not be infringed' and 'Congress shall make no law' are fairly clear, but trading guns with government agents, especially in the context of "... and the targe... I mean protesters are over there." is hardly peaceable assembly, does nothing for the well-regulated militia, defend against tyranny, or really affect The People bearing arms one way or the other.

    1. CE   1 year ago

      Are the straw men armed too?

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago (edited)

        You seriously don’t think “Citizens are free to keep and bear arms among themselves but not to The State, nor The State from them.” is something the FF would write? It sounds like a/the exact perfect compliment to preventing The State from keeping a standing army and keeping the government reliant on private militias etc.

        I freely admit that Leftards would do stupid shit like interpret “not to The State” to mean “You can’t bring a gun on Federal Property.” and, even if they agreed to the above law would still (continue to, try to) enact other infringing laws, but they’re going to do that anyway. Selective interpretation in bad faith can/does/will render even the most clearly worded law “vague”. There’s no limit to how stupid people can be. But, in good faith, the law doesn’t exactly seem wrong or anti-libertarian… right? We almost certainly should have some sort of law saying the IRS, FDA, and other regulatory agencies shouldn’t be able to acquire firearms as duty or policy. That law wouldn’t run afoul of the 2A, right?

  14. damikesc   1 year ago

    Whew, sure dodged a bullet not voting for that fascist who'd ignore the Constitution and courts.

    1. R Mac   1 year ago

      Strategically and reluctantly though.

  15. Agammamon   1 year ago

    But we're fucking SUPPOSED TO HATE TRUMP because 'he'll be an authoritarian'? We can't vote for Trump because he won't respect the law? We can't vote for Trump because he'll be a dictator?

    You're just so fucked with TDS, Sullum, its insane. This dude is already doing what you claim Trump will - but didn't when he was President - do, you keep pointing out the shit this guys does . . . but 'the adults are back in charge' and that's what matters to you?

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      Sounds serious! Where in the 1,300 pages is all that?

  16. Sevo   1 year ago

    Gee, TDS-addled shit-pile Sullum, could you soft-peddle this a bit more?

    "...that would be plainly inconsistent with federal law..."

    It's spelled "unconstitutional" and if Trump had flag-poled anything close to this, you'd have had screaming 90pt headlines.
    Fuck off and die.

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      Authors usually don't write headlines.

  17. NOYB2   1 year ago (edited)

    Biden Reportedly Is Planning To Unilaterally Mandate Background Checks for All Gun Sales

    Biden: “I must destroy democracy and become a dictator in order to save democracy!”

    Sullum: "At least Biden respects democracy and political norms, unlike Trump!"

    1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Well, Biden is implementing the democrat party platform, so I guess that could be considered respecting democracy.

      1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

        And political norms.

        1. CE   1 year ago

          According to the unbiased mainstream media...

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago (edited)

      Biden Reportedly Is Planning To Unilaterally Mandate Background Checks for All Gun Sales

      Biden Administration and Their Puppetmasters: “I must destroy democracy and become a dictator in order to save democracy!”

      Sullum: “At least Biden respects democracy and political norms, unlike Trump!”

      FIFY. Pretty sure Biden isn’t in any way invested in the long term future of our democratic republic, cognitively, familialy, or politically.

  18. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

    Well Jacob you got the president you campaigned for. Suck it up.

  19. Eeyore   1 year ago

    Biden isn't doing shit. Just a puppet.

  20. zombietimeshare   1 year ago

    Ehhh! The best I can do is no.

  21. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    Take all the 9mm pistols and ammunition Obama's administration purchased, allegedly to arm a bunch of new departments, but really to get them off the market, and put them in the Civilian marksmanship program.
    Hand them out with a few hundred rounds of ammunition, and require police departments receiving federal funds allow access to training ranges.
    A common sense response to the two divisions of Communist Chinese military who have infiltrated the southern border.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      "really to get them off the market"

      No, I think he really wants bureaucrats to be armed.

    2. CE   1 year ago

      I thought Obama sent them all to Mexico to start the Glorious People's Revolution or some such?

  22. JParker   1 year ago

    If the US Supreme Court does the right thing and guts the Chevron decision, this will knock the legs our of this, even if nothing else does.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      Assuming the Biden regime cares what the Supreme Court says.

  23. TryLogic   1 year ago (edited)

    Don’t you first have to know I have a gun before you can regulate how I transfer it? Ummm, what gun? Then I give my ghost gun to a friend permanently, and he gives me $400.00 for a stick of gum. No government involved in that transaction.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      That's why they have to get rid of cash.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        Fine, 1 unregistered weapon in exchange for 1 chocolate ration.

  24. JesseAz   1 year ago

    So just to take note. Sarc has a lot of comments in this thread but none of them actually criticize the president pushing them. Seeing as he criticizes Biden all the time, if you ask him, I would think there would be a criticism somewhere.

    1. CE   1 year ago

      If only we had common sense Presidential control laws.

    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      Fuck Biden's gun control policies. A pox on him and his handlers.

      Satisfied?

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        While better than your usual refer to, one would think you wouldn't have to always be backed into it. But got you to dance.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Fuck Trump and his trade policies. A pox on him and his handlers.

          NOOOOO! I JUST COMMITTED BLASPHEMY!11!!1111!!ELVENTY!!!!!

        2. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

          Oh wait. Biden kept those policies.

          See the principled Trump supporters show their principles.

          HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAA HA HA HA HA HA!

          Principles shminciples.

  25. CE   1 year ago

    So he unilaterally raids the Treasury to pay off the debts of his supporters, then unilaterally voids one tenth of the Bill of Rights?

    "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

    1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      "then unilaterally voids one tenth of the Bill of Rights?"

      Just for the record, that is correctly described as decimating the bill of rights.

      1. CE   1 year ago

        Good point. And I think he's already over one-tenth, after prosecuting people for mostly peacefully assembling at the Capitol for a redress of grievances pertaining to the election...

        1. mad.casual   1 year ago (edited)

          after prosecuting people for mostly peacefully assembling at the Capitol for a redress of grievances

          They weren’t journalists and it wasn’t the Texas Capitol so it doesn’t count as a 1A issue. /sarc (in case it wasn't clear).

  26. B G   1 year ago

    Thank god we've got a President willing to end-run around established laws in order to enact his personal agenda without legislation and not some kind of "would-be dictator" like that other guy....

    Double thanks that we're going to get a rematch of what was probably the single worst slate of options in a Presidential election in the history of the USA. Or is this one even worse since at least half of the supposedly "viable" candidates are clearly mentally incompetent (and the other half are still temperamentally unfit for any position of authority).

    If 2024 doesn't lead to at least one "third party" candidate getting some electoral votes, then it might truly be hopeless. Kodos vs Kang was a more appealing match-up than what the MSM is driving the country toward; probably also the literal "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" race from South Park.

    1. DesigNate   1 year ago

      Narrator: No third party candidate would get an electoral vote in that election.

    2. CE   1 year ago

      The third party anonymous "No Labels" labeled candidate polls well, until they name him, whereupon he loses half his support immediately, and then the rest trickles away once they realize he can't win.

      Their great hope is to win enough Electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives. There are just 2 problems: winning 25% in every state earns you 0 Electoral votes, not a quarter of them. And the House is comprised of Dem and Repub politicians.

    3. JeremyR   1 year ago

      The problem is the 3rd party candidate appears to be RJK Jr, who is nuttier than both Biden and Trump

    4. mad.casual   1 year ago (edited)

      Double thanks that we’re going to get a rematch of what was probably the single worst slate of options in a Presidential election in the history of the USA.

      The more I hear this, the more detached and “BOAF SIDEZ” it becomes. Especially given the projected outcome vs. known fact.

      We had an election that tore the nation in half and killed a million people. We had an election that forcibly interned 100,000K people. We had an election that came ->||<- this close to starting global nuclear war. We had an election that put boots on the ground in Afghanistan for 20+ yrs. We had an election that abjectly fucked up the exfil from Afghanistan and any (if) residual political clout, respect, or good will gained from the previous 20+ yrs.

      In the middle, we had at least one election where none of those things occurred.

      Hell, we had an election where an incumbent who was "not a crook" broke the law in and spied on their opposition… then we had elections where that didn't happen. Elections where The President openly exerted coercive authority over the media, prosecuting and jailing reporters specifically for their policy-based opposition… then we had elections where The President struggled to legally restrain the media for libelous personal portrayals and allegations.

      It feels an awful lot like saying a Presidential election between Kermit Gosnell or Jeffrey Dahmer and Tonya Harding or Jose Censeco is the worst set of options in US History. Yeah, I don't like Tonya Harding or Jose Canseco either, but their Senator siblings didn't drive anyone off a bridge to their death (that I'm aware of) and their opposition is clearly *way* worse.

      1. B G   1 year ago

        If that incident wasn't considered to be serious enough to get Ted out of the Senate 30 years ago, what reason is there to believe that it'd hurt his nephew when half the electorate doesn't even remember who Ted Kennedy was?

        Hell, most "millenials" think that 6% is the highest that mortgage rates have ever been in the history of finance and have no idea that Palestinian "freedom fighters" used to take US Citizens hostage several times per year by hijacking commercial airline flights.

  27. CE   1 year ago

    And now Biden is weighing in on what Israelis do to other Israelis in the West Bank? What sort of jurisdiction does he have there?

  28. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

    "Under current federal law, background checks are required only for sales by federally licensed dealers. A rule that the ATF proposed last September would expand the definition of "dealer" to encompass some but not all occasional gun sellers. But even that controversial proposal does not go as far as the plan described by Empower America's sources, who say "the ATF has drafted a 1,300-page document in support of a rule that would effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another by requiring background checks for every sale.""

    Press release alleges horrible things, details [possibly] to follow...

    Federal law did change, like it or not. It is to be expected that the Biden Administration, which championed the new law (and constantly overstates its significance), would revise the regulations accordingly. Or even to try to exceed the new authority. But we cannot know to what extent they have done that (or not) until they actually do it.

    Sorry, but a press release about an alleged 1,300 page document of some kind (which has not been released or leaked in whole or in part) which allegedly includes "plans" to illegally exceed presidential authority cannot be taken seriously by serious people. We already know Biden hates guns and will do whatever he can (within the law) to eliminate them from public life. But the only person who has mused about "terminating" the Constitution to get what he wants is Trump.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      the only person who has mused about “terminating” the Constitution to get what he wants is Trump.

      Cite?

      1. JasonT20   1 year ago

        Dec. 3, 2022 on Truth Social:

        “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

        So, Trump doesn't think he needs to prove that election fraud cost him the 2020 election anywhere other than in his own mind and to the satisfaction of his loyal supporters before the "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

        Yes, Trump is the one that has clearly mused about "terminating" whatever parts of the Constitution prevent him from getting what he wants.

        1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          So, when a coup has taken place, the normal rule of law is in abeyance. That seems self-evident.

          1. JasonT20   1 year ago

            So, when a coup has taken place...

            So, you're just going to skip right over the part of what I wrote where only Trump and his loyal followers (like you, presumably) believe that there was anything like a coup happening in the 2020 election. You know, the part where to justify disregarding "the normal rule of law" after an election takes more than the say so of the people that lost.

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              There was a normal and peaceful transfer of office when Trump left. When was the "normal rule of law" disregarded?

              1. JasonT20   1 year ago

                Keep telling yourself that. One day, you may even believe it.

                1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                  Can you link to the video of Trump being forced out of the White House at gunpoint?

                  1. JasonT20   1 year ago

                    You have a low bar for what counts as a peaceful transfer of power, then.

                    My bar is the history of more than 100 years where the loser of the Presidential election has only contested the results through legal processes of canvassing boards and courts, and then admits defeat when there is nothing left to be done. That history has meant that prior to Jan 6, 2021, there was more than a century where no riots or other large scale violence occurred from the losing side continuing to claim that the results were illegitimate.

                    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      Do I need to post the videos of the riots after Trump's election again? You've forgotten Hillary's tantrums? You don't remember Gore's ridiculous lawsuit in Florida? I asked if you were paying attention—I see the answer is no.

                    2. JasonT20   1 year ago (edited)

                      Sure, show me the video of Hillary supporters rioting and overwhelming police in order to get into the Capitol to stop the certification of Trump’s win. Show me how Gore kept fighting to become president after the Supreme Court ruled against him. (By the way, it was Bush that initiated the lawsuit, arguing that the recount Gore had demanded was limited to just heavily Democratic counties and didn’t have consistent standards across jurisdictions. The Florida Supreme Court then ordered a statewide recount, which Bush appealed to the SCOTUS.) If the theory Trump and his supporters were pushing that Pence could just declare some states’ certified Electoral Votes invalid was correct, Gore could have done the same and won in 2000, and Biden could have done that in 2016 to prevent Trump from being declared the winner.

                      So go on, please. Keep pretending that there are any equivalences to what Trump and his followers did in the wake of the 2020 election with elections from the prior 100 years.

                    3. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      Do you get tired running with that goalpost?

                    4. JasonT20   1 year ago

                      I haven't moved any goalposts. But you have continually ignored the content of messages you reply to in order to go in some other direction you think you can win.

                      Remember where this started - ObviouslyNotSpam wrote that Trump had "mused" about "terminating" the Constitution. You ask for a cite. I provide one. You implicitly acknowledge the accuracy of the original claim by saying that a "coup" justifies suspending the normal rule of law. I point out that only Trump true believers would use that word for the 2020 election, and only among Republicans do a majority think that the results were significantly tainted by fraud. You ignore that part of my post to claim that there was a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election. I, being astonished that you would make that claim, suggest that you might come to believe it if you tell it yourself often enough. You want video of Trump being forced out of the White House at gunpoint. I point out what a low bar you are setting for what constitutes a peaceful transfer of power, and that I expect a peaceful transfer of power to match the history of this country for over a century. You claim riots after Trumps victory were significant. You talk about Hillary's "tantrums" and "Gore's lawsuit." I point out that none of those events are anything close to the scale of what Trump triggered on Jan. 6, 2021. You now claim I moved goalposts.

                      I don't see anything useful coming from this. You simply won't acknowledge anything objectively true if it runs counter to what you want to believe.

        2. damikesc   1 year ago

          ...yet he did not do anything.

          Strange.

          Biden, on the other hand, brags about ignoring SCOTUS

          1. JasonT20   1 year ago

            Did not do anything? He pushed his VP to just ignore electoral votes and declare them invalid unilaterally. A VP that had been obsequiously loyal prior to that. He tried to argue about fraud with the Georgia Sec. of State to push him to declare that his state's results weren't valid (i.e. "find" enough votes to change the result) rather than take his supposed evidence to a place where it could be evaluated objectively.

            You don't put someone in jail without a real trial, right? Why should anyone think that official election results can be tossed aside without at least similar due process?

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              his state’s results weren’t valid

              Georgia's election was in fact so highly irregular that there is indeed reasonable doubt about the true outcome. If you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention.

              1. JasonT20   1 year ago

                I pay quite a bit of attention. If you mean that I haven't been paying attention to the conspiracies, like 2000 Mules, then I don't go down those rabbit holes, that is true.

                1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                  So you're OK with ballot boxes being stuffed with unsolicited mail-in ballots?

                  1. JasonT20   1 year ago

                    I am absolutely okay with eligible voters being able to use mail in voting. I am also okay with states sending those ballots to voters without them specifically requesting them. Utah does this, by the way.

                    Republicans were right there with everyone else working to make absentee/mail voting more available in many states. That is, they were until Trump started claiming how much fraud it would allow. He must have been expecting that the 3 million illegals that voted for Hilary were going to overwhelm elections with fake mail ballots or something...

                    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago (edited)
                  2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                    Thank you for your candor.

                    1. JasonT20   1 year ago

                      My pleasure. I am always available to support the right of U.S. citizens to vote for their government.

                    2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      ...as many times as they wish.

                    3. JasonT20   1 year ago

                      That's what you do when you don't have evidence of significant fraud. Just assume that the other side wants to do it/is doing it/will do it if you don't limit people's ability to vote.

        3. B G   1 year ago

          "Yes, Trump is the one that has clearly mused about “terminating” whatever parts of the Constitution prevent him from getting what he wants."

          As long as you can wish away decades of Dem activists (and sometimes party officials?) calling for the elimination of the Electoral College, or in some cases even the US Senate. Or calls from anti-gun Dems for the full repeal of the 2nd Amendment, or the virtual repeal of it in the courts by claims that the "well regulated militia" means that only uniformed military and other agents of the State were ever meant to be permitted weapons.

          Once all that goes down the memory hole, then the "musings" by trump which you choose to not forget, would remain as the most prominent example.

          Also, most of the time, the left doesn't talk about abandoning or attacking the Constitution, they just do it. There's a reason so many laws passed and signed in CA in the last 4 years have been blocked and overturned by Federal courts, or in some cases repealed by the legislature when legal challenges were launched in order to avoid a ruling that might block them from trying again at some point in the future...

          1. JasonT20   1 year ago

            As long as you can wish away decades of Dem activists (and sometimes party officials?) calling for the elimination of the Electoral College, or in some cases even the US Senate. Or calls from anti-gun Dems for the full repeal of the 2nd Amendment, or the virtual repeal of it in the courts by claims that the “well regulated militia” means that only uniformed military and other agents of the State were ever meant to be permitted weapons.

            How does any of that call for terminating the Constitution? I haven't heard anyone call for eliminating the Electoral College other than through constitutional means. Either by amendment or the "national popular vote compact." (That latter method would be constitutional because states have wide latitude to decide how to allocate their Electoral Votes. If they want to allocate them based on the popular vote of the whole country instead of just their state, I don't see why they can't do that.) I see a lot of people complain about the equal state representation in the Senate, but I have also never seen anyone suggest or advocate any means of changing that other than through constitutional processes. (Which, admittedly, would be exceptionally difficult. Even through an amendment no state can end up with less than an equal share of the seats in the Senate without its consent. That means that any change to equal representation would basically need to be unanimous among the states.) Repealing the 2nd Amendment would require a new amendment, so that is also not 'terminating' anything in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is always in the business of interpreting the Constitution, so if it did (somehow, despite a 6-3 conservative majority) overrule itself and declare that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia, that wouldn't be any different than any other landmark SCOTUS decisions, including ones conservatives cheered on, like Hobbs, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, or Heller itself.

            I wonder why defending Trump so often requires the defenders to engage in such massive false equivalence.

          2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago (edited)

            None of these things Democrats supposedly want to do are unconstitutional. Most of them would require a constitutional amendment, which is a purposely difficult process.

            “[T]ermination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” cannot honestly be interpreted as a promise to abide by the rule of law. Coupled with his blatant attempt to steal the 2020 election and his off-color joke about being dictator–but only for one day–belies a contempt for the rule of law which is unmistakable in its odor.

            I would not stand by if Biden tried to “terminate” the 2nd Amendment–or any other part of the Constitution. Unlike with Trump, I have not seen anything from Biden to suggest he holds the rule of law in anything close to the contempt Trump does. I wish there were a better Republican alternative to Trump, but if he’s the nominee, there is no question that I will vote for his opponent.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

      But the only person who has mused about “terminating” the Constitution to get what he wants is Trump.

      Again, the big difference between Biden and Trump is... Trump is all talk, Biden acts.

      1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        And he "acted" to terminate the Constitution when, exactly? I think I missed it...

      2. JasonT20   1 year ago

        Also, Trump's idea of "all talk" has led his most loyal followers to both threaten and carry out acts that are against the law and against the very idea of self-government that made America great. And right now, the Trump loyalists in the House are looking to sink a Senate border deal put together by Sen. James Lankford (R-OH). Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) had this to say:

        "The height of stupidity is having a strong opinion in something you know nothing about," he told Raju. "I'm extremely disappointed in the strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo a potential border reform bill."

        "But if we have a bill, that on net significantly decreases illegal immigration, and we sabotage that, that is inconsistent with what we told our voters we would do," he said, while adding that it would be "dereliction of duty" to not pass the deal.

        Why be unwilling to accept the good instead of holding to a House bill that would go nowhere in the Senate, let alone get signed by Biden? Because it preserves the border as a campaign issue for Trump. (Rumors are that Trump is the one pushing them to reject the deal in the House.)

        Sen. Grassley (the guy 9 years older than Biden reelected to a 6 year term in 2022) has said the quiet part out loud about how passing a tax compromise very popular with both voters and many people on both sides of the aisle gives Biden a "win" and he doesn't want to do that in an election year.

        Crenshaw is right. Republicans haven't been a party that wants to get things done when it isn't in power in decades, at least. When it is the opposition, that is all it does - oppose - and that is all to support the goal of recovering full control of both branches of federal government. (They already have complete control of the 3rd branch, and will for the next 20 years, most likely.) Why Republican voters think that the GOP will govern in their interest when they are in full control when they don't do so when not in full control is beyond me.

        1. damikesc   1 year ago

          You're aware the House passed an immigration bill months ago the Dems have ignored, right?

          Fuck 'em.

          1. JasonT20   1 year ago

            So? The Senate and the House can both try and pass bills. (Only for spending bills does the Senate have to start with something that came from the House.) Legislators that are trying to actually accomplish something might work with those in the other chamber to arrive at a compromise that will be accepted by a majority of both and be signed by the President. Those that are just looking to create controversies to campaign on will push to pass bills that they know are just for show and have no chance of becoming law. (Like the few dozen times the House voted to repeal the ACA, aka Obamacare).

      3. In Canis Credimus   1 year ago

        Trump has stated that he will become dictator on day 1, he has a plan, Project 2025, to gut civil office and the military leadership and replace them all with those who wear fealty to Trump and the Heritage Foundation only. He will declare marshall law and suspend the Constitution on day 2 and begin rounding up people for his retribution camps on day 3. That is his plan.

        1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

          Oh, not Marshall Law again...

  29. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

    States that notionally mandate "universal background checks" do so through laws that require private sellers to complete transactions via federally licensed dealers. Research suggests those requirements are widely flouted by gun owners who either are unaware of the law or object to the cost and inconvenience that compliance entails. In any event, this option is not available to the ATF "without additional legislation."

    My state has universal background checks. All sales, private or otherwise require a background check. I can't state whether the law is "widely flouted"-- it certainly is by criminals, but I'm not so sure about non-criminals.

    For instance, if I own a gun that's "traceable" as most of mine are, and I made a private sale to someone who wasn't a very, very close friend, and that gun were to ever be used in a crime, I would likely be prosecuted for not going through the background check for that gun.

    I do know that as of a few years ago, zero people had been prosecuted for violating i594, and then the press made a big fat deal when they finally got their first prosecution: Some local shifty gangbanger who gave gun to a friend who then used it to kill someone.

    The fact of the matter is, I only have ONE firearm that is "untraceable" (Ie, a gun in my collection that I was not the original purchaser of and I know has passed through many hands over the last 30 years before it came into my possession), the rest were purchased by me. So ONLY guns purchased BEFORE i594 could I sell without going through a background check, but then I'd realistically could only sell to a very close friend, and we'd have to 'get our stories straight' before I did: 'I gave you this gun back in 2004... right... RIGHT?'

    But there's no way I would simply sell the gun to a stranger.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

      Oh, and further? Gun "sale" is a complete misnomer. My state doesn't have background checks for "gun sales", it requires a background check for any transfer of a firearm from one person to another and 'transfer' isn't defined in the law.

      That arguably means that if you say, "Hey Diane, I'm thinking of buying one of them new Walther PPK 9mm, do you like yours?" and I said, "Yeah, it's a nice gun, trigger's a little light.... here, take mine to the range this weekend, let me know what you think, you can bring it back on Monday" that would be an 'illegal transfer'.

  30. Djmcg55   1 year ago

    Joe has consistently demonstrated that he has no regard for the Constitution or the limitation of power. He needs to go.

    1. In Canis Credimus   1 year ago

      He has done nothing of the sort. If anything he is far less big on overreaching the executive office unlike your hero Mango Mussolini

  31. In Canis Credimus   1 year ago

    Lol he is definitely -not- going to do that during an election year, especially when he's challenging a despotic leaning GQP candidate, Trump. Y'all don't need to grab your pearls just yet lol. Please don't vote for the Orange Oligarch if you ever want to see any party other than MAGA fascism for the next generation.

  32. bonepo6603   1 year ago (edited)

    Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
    .
    .
    Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.work.salary49.Com

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Marjorie Taylor Greene Is Dead Wrong About Outlawing Climate Geoengineering

Ronald Bailey | 7.23.2025 6:00 PM

Virginia Is Using AI To Identify Illegal and Redundant Regulations

Jack Nicastro | 7.23.2025 4:48 PM

Trump Administration Opens New Investigation Into Harvard, Escalating Pressure

Autumn Billings | 7.23.2025 4:10 PM

Police Officer Threatens To Run Over Protester for Filming on the Sidewalk

Joe Lancaster | 7.23.2025 3:55 PM

Can Wall Street Survive a Socialist Mayor?

Jared Dillian | 7.23.2025 1:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!