Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10100
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by TC Talks » Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:52 pm

With the NRA declaring bankruptcy last week, effectively disabling the lobbying effort, now is hte time to push through meaningful background checks, an assault riffle ban and closing the loopholes in the gun "show" and private sale rules.

IF we need to register cars why not the tool that kills more people than cars each year?
Seeking an end-run around an investigation by the New York attorney general, the National Rifle Association said Friday that it was declaring bankruptcy and would reincorporate in Texas. The gun group was set up in New York after the Civil War.

The group’s effort to circumvent New York’s legal jurisdiction raised immediate questions from Letitia James, the New York attorney general and a Democrat, who is seeking to use her regulatory authority to dissolve the N.R.A. She has been conducting an investigation into corruption at the gun group since 2019.

“The N.R.A.’s claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt,” Ms. James said in a statement Friday. “While we review this filing, we will not allow the N.R.A. to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.”

Ms. James’s investigation has come as the N.R.A. has been racked by infighting and discontent, including the bitter departures of its president, Oliver L. North, and its top lobbyist, Chris Cox. Long the nation’s most powerful gun lobby, the N.R.A. played a diminished role in the 2020 election, hampered by financial woes and a host of legal challenges.

Typically, nonprofit groups that are chartered in New York and under investigation are prohibited from relocating their assets during an inquiry; in recent years, the attorney general’s office prevented the Trump Foundation from closing before it had reached the conclusion of an investigation into that organization.

The bankruptcy filing could delay the resolution of the attorney general’s case while the matter is litigated in bankruptcy court.

“Under this plan, the Association wisely seeks protection from New York officials who it believes have illegally weaponized their powers against the N.R.A. and its members,” William A. Brewer III, the N.R.A.’s lead outside lawyer, said in a statement.

DEALBOOK: An examination of the major business and policy headlines and the power brokers who shape them.
Sign Up
But the group’s adversaries saw the move as an opportunistic effort to evade a reckoning with the attorney general’s office.

“They are desperate and they are seeking novel recourse in their desperation,” said Nick Suplina, a former senior adviser and special counsel in the New York attorney general’s office who now works for Everytown, the gun control group. “I think this is a long-shot effort by the N.R.A. to avoid liability in New York, and it has a very slim chance of succeeding.”

The N.R.A. and a subsidiary filed Chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Dallas. It reported between $100 million and $500 million in assets and the same amount in liabilities.

Sean Delany, a former chief of the charities bureau in the New York attorney general’s office, the division that handled the case, questioned whether “the filing accurately represents the N.R.A.’s financial position.”

Mr. Delany worked at the attorney general’s office when another high profile nonprofit group, the Freedom Forum, reincorporated amid an investigation into its spending practices, but that did not forestall penalties being levied.

“Our position was you can dissolve your corporation here and relocate, but the assets remain in New York and subject to the jurisdiction of the attorney general,” he said.

Bankruptcy, however, adds a new wrinkle.

The N.R.A. said Friday that Marschall Smith, a former general counsel for 3M Company, would serve as its chief restructuring officer.

It also said it had also formed a committee to examine moving its headquarters out of Fairfax, Va., and that it would study “opportunities for relocating segments of its business operations to Texas or other states.”


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6408
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:29 am

Absolutely. I do support the rights of Americans to own pistols, but the assault rifles have to go.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10100
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by TC Talks » Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:27 am

It looks like the Sandy Hook Promise (a solvent non-profit) is now pushing to get some common sense into the sale of guns.

Once his first round of agenda items get taken care of, and we finally get a vaccine policy in place, it looks good for a gun legislation to be brought forward.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

screen glare
Posts: 2778
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by screen glare » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:33 am

How about it includes a gun buy back?



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am

Please define "Assault Rifle."


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by km1125 » Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:58 am

screen glare wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:33 am
How about it includes a gun buy back?
How can someone 'buy back' something they never sold in the first place?
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
And while they're defining that, have someone explain how cigarettes figure into the "tool that kills more people than cars each year" !

Whole thread is absurd. Bet the gun lobby loves it though, as things like this will spur gun sales into the record territory (again).



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13961
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am

Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am

Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13961
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:15 am

Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?
You are attempting to bait me into saying AR-15 or AK-47... note that these are derived from military weapons. But the reality is that a gun that had a high capacity of bullets that can be fired at a high rate is not something the average person needs nor is it in keeping with the original intent of the framers. It couldn’t be. Such weapons did not exist. Admit that or forfeit the right to ever talk about the original intent of the framers again because it will be impossible to take you seriously at that point. You can’t pick and choose what original intent you wish to follow if that is truly a tenet of your beliefs in how the government is supposed to function.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by audiophile » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:30 am

Image


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:09 am

Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:15 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?
You are attempting to bait me into saying AR-15 or AK-47... note that these are derived from military weapons. But the reality is that a gun that had a high capacity of bullets that can be fired at a high rate is not something the average person needs nor is it in keeping with the original intent of the framers. It couldn’t be. Such weapons did not exist. Admit that or forfeit the right to ever talk about the original intent of the framers again because it will be impossible to take you seriously at that point. You can’t pick and choose what original intent you wish to follow if that is truly a tenet of your beliefs in how the government is supposed to function.
Your premise is faulty. The framers could have never imagined the World Wide Web. Should the First Amendment not apply to it?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13961
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:14 am

Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:09 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:15 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?
You are attempting to bait me into saying AR-15 or AK-47... note that these are derived from military weapons. But the reality is that a gun that had a high capacity of bullets that can be fired at a high rate is not something the average person needs nor is it in keeping with the original intent of the framers. It couldn’t be. Such weapons did not exist. Admit that or forfeit the right to ever talk about the original intent of the framers again because it will be impossible to take you seriously at that point. You can’t pick and choose what original intent you wish to follow if that is truly a tenet of your beliefs in how the government is supposed to function.
Your premise is faulty. The framers could have never imagined the World Wide Web. Should the First Amendment not apply to it?
It already doesn’t. Any company that provides you space on its server or lets you have an account on its platform can ban you or remove you or censor you for any reason. The government has nothing to do with that. The first amendment is between you and the government and it means that they cannot arrest you for speaking your mind. That is the ONLY ONLY ONLY thing that it means. Anybody else can shut you the hell up. Now if they pummel you half to death so that you can no longer say whatever pissed them off that would be assault but it would not be a first amendment violation.

It’s the same thing with Josh Hawley whining about Simon & Schuster dropping his book. It’s a business decision that they have a right to perform as they see fit. It is NOT NOT NOT a first amendment issue no matter how badly he wants to lie and dupe people into thinking it is. He knows better.

You simply don’t have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want without repercussions from those individuals unless they are the government and as long as such actions are not going to cause harm such as yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre.

My premise isn’t faulty, your assumption that the first amendment applies to the internet in any meaningful way is.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by audiophile » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:29 am

So RT using that logic if the telephone company doesn't like what saying to friends they can cut off your phone service?

McDonalds can refuse to serve you because you are wearing a Hardies' hat?

A baker can refuse sell you donuts because you are fat?

A landlord have can evicted because play gangsta rap?
Last edited by audiophile on Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13961
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:34 am

audiophile wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:29 am
So RT using that logic if the telephone company doesn't like what saying to friends they can cut off your phone service?

McDonalds can refuse to serve you because you are wearing a Hardies' hat?

A baker can refuse sell you donuts because you are fat?
Yes to the McDonald’s and bakers examples. Absolutely.

As for the first one it depends on if the phone company is a public utility or not but my guess is that yes they can.

We have many laws but none of them protects fat people or people in Hardee’s hats from being told no on that basis... now if they say it’s because of race, gender or ethnicity those are protected and you cannot do that.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by audiophile » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:37 am

Interesting, I will give credit for consistency on this one issue but not on the pipeline.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic