democrats are coming for your guns...

[hubcapsc]

There's a Wall Street Journal editorial today with that headline.

I read it and went off to Biden's campaign web page to search for what
the WSJ said was there and found it:

Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.

Every gun manufacturer will instantly be sued out of existence if they get
their way. If a gang-banger shoots some people in Chicago, lawyers will sue the
gun manufacturer. If someone robs a bank, lawyers will sue the gun
manufacturer. If someone commits suicide, lawyers will sue the gun
manufacturer.

The editorial compared it to being able to sue car companies... "The National
Safety Council estimates that 39,404 Americans died and 4.5 million
were injured from car accidents in 2018. Cars are also used frequently to
commit crimes."

How can anyone who doesn't hate guns vote for the democrats? I'm
asking...

-Mike

[The emperor has no clothes]

Mike, you make a few assumptions as fact. If tobacco companies weren't sued out of existence, why would you assume gun companies would be ? There are tons of frivolous cases brought against all kinds of companies and industries. They didn't fold up under the pressure.

[98valk]

yes they are per UN agendas and the latest 2030 agenda. democrat party are american in name only they are all UN globalist operatives now.

Goal 11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Translation: Ban all gun ownership by private citizens, concentrating guns into the hands of obedient government enforcers who rule over an unarmed, enslaved class of impoverished workers. Criminalize living in most rural areas by instituting Hunger Games-style "protected areas" which the government will claim are owned by "the People" even though no people are allowed to live there.
https://www.naturalnews.com/051058_2030_Agenda_United_Nations_global_enslavement.html

the clintons and obama both UN operatives put America into the treaty, TRUMP stopped it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/26/trump-nra-united-nations-arms-treaty-gun-control

deep state at work to disarm
https://thenewamerican.com/us-promises-full-implementation-of-un-gun-control-agreement/

UN 21 Agenda again

https://thebottomlineat.blogspot.com/2013/08/un-study-to-disarm-america.html

[Jess from VA]

How can anyone who doesn't hate guns vote for the democrats?  I'm
asking...

They can't, period.  Biden will go along with most anything they put in front of him.

But Harris is the the rabid dog antigun candidate.  She wants every modern sporting rifle confiscated.  She calls it a gun buy back, but the G never owned any of them, so how can they buy them back?  A mandatory buy back is confiscation, and patently unconstitutional.  Until they pack the court.

And it's not just the 2d Amend, they are only interested in Constitutional interpretation that furthers their agenda, otherwise it's pack the Court or whatever it takes.

  

[hubcapsc]

If tobacco companies weren't sued out of existence, why would you assume gun companies would be ?

How much is a carton of cigarettes now? How much do you want a kel-tec
pocket pistol to cost? Gun manufacturers have political targets on their
backs, they have a legitimate need to be protected from frivolous
political attacks. He'll yes! they're coming after guns, they  just need
you to vote for them.

-Mike

[Serk]

They're not shy about it, they're actually proud of their anti-American stance. Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://antifa.com/gunsafety/#

[hubcapsc]

That's pretty cool how antifa, which isn't an organization, has
a web page that's just a redirect over to joebiden...

[hubcap@hubcapsc ~]$ curl antifa.com
<a href='https://joebiden.com/'>Found</a>.

They pay a middle-man to set up their DNS stuff, so who they
are is a secret. It could be anyone (like the first person to think
of registering the name)...

-Mike

[MAD6Gun]

Mike, you make a few assumptions as fact. If tobacco companies weren't sued out of existence, why would you assume gun companies would be ? There are tons of frivolous cases brought against all kinds of companies and industries. They didn't fold up under the pressure.

 You're missing the point.  Cigarettes have been linked to cancer. It was also found some manufacturers knew it and did nothing abut it. Anyone who thinks inhaling smoke into you lungs isn't hurting them is fooling themselves.

 Guns are designed to send a projectile down a tube at a very high rate of speed. If someone uses said device to kill innocent people.  How is that the fault of the manufacturer?  Now if they make a defective products like Remington did with the 700 rifle then and only then should they be sued. The Democrats have been trying to take our guns away from us for decades. Don't deny it. It takes many forms. The failed so called assault weapons ban. Red flag laws. Taxing ammo and guns out of the reach of some people. Ect ect ect. They can't repeal the second amendment so they will try anything to limit our rights to own guns...

[f6john]

I can’t predict what will happen the next time a Democrat holds the Whitehouse and Congress. We can see which way the wind seems to be blowing and yet it doesn’t faze our resident Trump haters. They along with the radical left are willing to risk any freedom and gamble away their offsprings future to see Trump sent home. So, the rest of us just have to strap in and hold on for what’s to come.

Trump has to defeat a lot more than Biden. He has to defeat the media, Hollywood, Pro Sports, and a Washington elite who owe there jobs and futures to the Democratic bureaucracy.

[carolinarider09]

Regarding the comparison to cigarettes,

Two things. 

First cigarettes are not mentioned in the U.S. Constition, firearms are.

Second, it is a known fact that firearms, by their vary nature, are lethal.  Cigarettes were not known to be lethal until..... Did the manufacturers know that cigarettes were lethal when they were selling them?  If they did and did not tell the users then there might be some liability there.

Guns are different they are known to be lethal. 

 

[..]

Marking each individual bullet etc.

Nah, not coming for guns. 

[..]

More here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/16/biden-gun-control-poverty/

[The emperor has no clothes]

Regarding the comparison to cigarettes,

Two things. 

First cigarettes are not mentioned in the U.S. Constition, firearms are.

Second, it is a known fact that firearms, by their vary nature, are lethal.  Cigarettes were not known to be lethal until..... Did the manufacturers know that cigarettes were lethal when they were selling them?  If they did and did not tell the users then there might be some liability there.

Guns are different they are known to be lethal. 

 

I think you are making my point for me. Firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Cigarettes are not. Yet, even without those protections they were not sued out of existence. I would agree there will be cases come before the courts. After a time there will be settled law on the issues.

[old2soon]

         At the risk of puttin my butt cheeks in a sling-Some of us here git it and some of us here do NOT git it. I'm in the former group NOT NO HOW NO WAY the latter group. I am Also PROUD to be a deplorable.
                                                            RIDE SAFE.

[DirtyDan]

         At the risk of puttin my butt cheeks in a sling-Some of us here git it and some of us here do NOT git it. I'm in the former group NOT NO HOW NO WAY the latter group. I am Also PROUD to be a deplorable.
                                                            RIDE SAFE.

 

+1

Dan

[The emperor has no clothes]

And Republicans are coming for (and have been for the past 20 years, starting with The Shrub),  every working man's Social Security savings.

I won’t go down that rabbit hole right now, but if you have paid any attention to Trumps actions for almost 4 years you would realize that is not on his agenda.

You might want to follow his agenda a little closer.
Per a factcheck.org article ;
"That’s the only clearly articulated plan related to Social Security retirement benefits put forward by the Trump administration.

But on the same day he signed the memo, and in the days that followed, Trump suggested he wanted to go even further — and either cut or end the payroll tax.

In a press briefing on Aug. 8, Trump said: “If I’m victorious on November 3rd, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. So I’m going to make them all permanent.”

In another news conference on Aug. 10, he stated: “I signed directives to give a payroll tax holiday, with the understanding that after the election — on the assumption that it would be victorious for an administration that’s done a great job — we will be ending that tax. We’ll be terminating that tax.”

And on Aug. 12 he declared: “After I hopefully get elected, we’ll be terminating the payroll tax. So that will mean anywhere from 5,000 [dollars] to even more per family and also great for businesses and great for jobs.” He later added: “We’ll be paying into Social Security through the general fund. And it works out very nicely.”

[DirtyDan]

This social security disability recipient is quite happy with things

Dan

[Jess from VA]

Unfortunately, there's no constitutional protection against taxes.

The fifth amendment forbids taking private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law, but that's never going to save us from taxes.

We get a tax code, and there's your due process.   

[Bighead]

Anyone who remotely believes that them paying SS is a savings for them has way more problems tban I can explain. The SS you are paying in every paycheck is being sent out to those before you so don’t  count on it once you are of age to recieve it.

[carolinarider09]

Let me see if I have this right.

Workers pay a tax to what we call the "social security trust fund".  Employers match that payment.  

We were told (well I was not there but I recall being taught) that the intent was that the fund would pay for social security payments to workers when they retired or otherwise  become authorized to receive payments. And the fund would grow of the years and pay for itself.  

In the mean time, the federal government figured that having that money just sit there was a big waste of cash, so they took it and spent it, leaving IOU's in the trust fund.

So, today, the fund is defunct.  Social Security is paid out of the federal budget.  

So, all Trump is doing is making the behind the doors process and slight of hand stuff no longer necessary.  

And the workers get a break.  

Or did I miss something???

[Bighead]

Let me see if I have this right.

Workers pay a tax to what we call the "social security trust fund".  Employers match that payment.  

We were told (well I was not there but I recall being taught) that the intent was that the fund would pay for social security payments to workers when they retired or otherwise  become authorized to receive payments. And the fund would grow of the years and pay for itself.  

In the mean time, the federal government figured that having that money just sit there was a big waste of cash, so they took it and spent it, leaving IOU's in the trust fund.

So, today, the fund is defunct.  Social Security is paid out of the federal budget.  

So, all Trump is doing is making the behind the doors process and slight of hand stuff no longer necessary.  

And the workers get a break.  

Or did I miss something???

Don’t think you missed a thing. 

[Gavin_Sons]

  yeah, come try to take my guns.  they must have more balls than brains

[The emperor has no clothes]

Let me see if I have this right.

Workers pay a tax to what we call the "social security trust fund".  Employers match that payment.  

We were told (well I was not there but I recall being taught) that the intent was that the fund would pay for social security payments to workers when they retired or otherwise  become authorized to receive payments. And the fund would grow of the years and pay for itself.  

In the mean time, the federal government figured that having that money just sit there was a big waste of cash, so they took it and spent it, leaving IOU's in the trust fund.

So, today, the fund is defunct.  Social Security is paid out of the federal budget.  

So, all Trump is doing is making the behind the doors process and slight of hand stuff no longer necessary.  

And the workers get a break.  

Or did I miss something???

Yes, you missed something.

https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/social-security-faqs/

[carolinarider09]

The article is incorrect.  The following statement is incorrect.

Any money that remains goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, to be used in future years when current contributions aren't sufficient to cover all of the program's obligations.

There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  Has been that way for years.  All that is there are "IOU"s

See article below from 2011


In short, the Social Security trust fund contains no money.  Charles Krauthammer agrees, writing in the Washington Post earlier this year, “When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck… most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury – and is spent… In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100.  There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox.”

http://seankerrigan.com/is-there-any-money-left-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/

[The emperor has no clothes]

The article is incorrect.  The following statement is incorrect.

Any money that remains goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, to be used in future years when current contributions aren't sufficient to cover all of the program's obligations.

There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  Has been that way for years.  All that is there are "IOU"s

See article below from 2011


In short, the Social Security trust fund contains no money.  Charles Krauthammer agrees, writing in the Washington Post earlier this year, “When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck… most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury – and is spent… In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100.  There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox.”

http://seankerrigan.com/is-there-any-money-left-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/

yes, but that's not what you said. Your statement ; "Social Security is paid out of the federal budget" . Social Security is paid out of SS taxes. In the future they will have to make up any shortfall out of the IOU's from the raided trust fund.

[MAD6Gun]

 Well another thread that got off Topic. First we are talking about Dems coming for our guns and it turned into another Trump bashing thread on taxes by one of our resident liberals. What a surprise.

[..]

Well another thread that got off Topic. First we are talking about Dems coming for our guns and it turned into another Trump bashing thread on taxes by one of our resident liberals. What a surprise.

They do like
Deflect
Distract
Deny.

[Jess from VA]

yeah, come try to take my guns.   they must have more balls than brains

Of course, THEY want the police to do the hard work of disarmament.  Except they are defunding (and vilifying) the police.

I think disarmament Democrats should have to go door to door to collect the guns.... and the ammo.

I could not think of a happier afternoon.  Well two weeks tops.  That would really be hope and change.

They have no balls, and only mediocre brains.... my friend.  

Social security will have to be fixed, but that is a long term project (very likely beyond most of our lifetimes).  It is just another Democrat (FDR) fiasco, and integrated into the general federal budget by LBJ (though in fairness, all of DC has reveled in spending the SS money that was supposed to be saved in trust for everyone.... who paid in and worked enough quarters to qualify).

And that's SS Retirement, not the train wreck of SS Disability.    

[baldo]

We've been hearing this for how many years now?

A show of hands....how many have had their guns taken away?

Don't be shy, speak right up.

[..]

More from Joe

End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.

TACKLE URBAN GUN VIOLENCE WITH TARGETED, EVIDENCE-BASED COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS

Daily acts of gun violence in our communities may not make national headlines, but are just as devastating to survivors and victims’ families as gun violence that does make the front page. And, these daily acts of gun violence disproportionately impact communities of color. But there is reason to be optimistic. There are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities without turning to incarceration. For example, Group Violence Intervention organizes community leaders to work with individuals most likely to commit acts of gun violence, express the community’s demand that the gun violence stop, and connect individuals who may be likely perpetrators with social and economic support services that may deter violent behavior. These types of interventions have reduced homicides by as much as 60%. Hospital-Based Violence Intervention engages young people who have been injured by gun violence while they are still in the hospital, connecting them to social and economic services that may decrease the likelihood they engage in or are victims of gun violence in the future. Biden will create a $900 million, eight-year initiative to fund these and other types of evidence-based interventions in 40 cities across the country – the 20 cities with the highest number of homicides, and 20 cities with the highest number of homicides per capita. This proposal is estimated to save more than 12,000 lives over the eight-year program.

Shame nothing was done when he was VP along with the Democrat mayors to reduce the amount of deaths

[..]

We've been hearing this for how many years now?

A show of hands....how many have had their guns taken away?

Don't be shy, speak right up.

Don't be shy, tell us what restrictions have been introduced as steps towards getting rid of guns.

[hubcapsc]

I would agree there will be cases come before the courts. After a time
there will be settled law on the issues.

Only if people are foolish enough to vote for politicians who advertise
their intentions get around their inability to have the 2nd amendment
repealed by running firearm manufacturers out of business and
causing all guns to be very expensive. If those politicians don't get
the votes, they don't get to throw their monkey wrench into
the works... "Hold gun manufacturers accountable"... for what?
for making guns? What are the issues? People can get guns,
that's their only issue.

-Mike

[The emperor has no clothes]

I would agree there will be cases come before the courts. After a time
there will be settled law on the issues.

Only if people are foolish enough to vote for politicians who advertise
their intentions get around their inability to have the 2nd amendment
repealed by running firearm manufacturers out of business and
causing all guns to be very expensive. If those politicians don't get
the votes, they don't get to throw their monkey wrench into
the works... "Hold gun manufacturers accountable"... for what?
for making guns? What are the issues? People can get guns,
that's their only issue.

-Mike

I don't know how much being exempt from lawsuits has decreased the price of guns. Maybe an economist could figure it out, but that ain't me. I do know the price of guns have went up dramatically with scared people thinking Obama was going to take away their guns. Should we punish the fearmongering ?

[baldo]

We've been hearing this for how many years now?

A show of hands....how many have had their guns taken away?

Don't be shy, speak right up.

Don't be shy, tell us what restrictions have been introduced as steps towards getting rid of guns.

Ohhhh, so now it's STEPS toward getting rid of the guns.....why didn't you say so?

Perhaps you could enlighten us.

[..]

We've been hearing this for how many years now?

A show of hands....how many have had their guns taken away?

Don't be shy, speak right up.

Don't be shy, tell us what restrictions have been introduced as steps towards getting rid of guns.

Ohhhh, so now it's STEPS toward getting rid of the guns.....why didn't you say so?

Perhaps you could enlighten us.

I hadn't said anything about your crowd coming for guns.

My point of view is there have been steps.

Are you denying there have been restrictive steps???

[JFaje1]

In every election cycle, the right starts bitching about those Liberals are coming for our gun's. Well I can't remember ever seeing so many guns in my life. Hell it is now legal to walk around in public with a damn AR16 over your shoulder , and the right still isn't happy. I remember when they started crying about O Bama buying up all the ammo, and there wasn't any left. It was because all the gun guy's were so scared about losing their ammo, they were buying it all by the case, and there wasn't enough to go around. Things will never change.
John

[Bighead]

I would agree there will be cases come before the courts. After a time
there will be settled law on the issues.

Only if people are foolish enough to vote for politicians who advertise
their intentions get around their inability to have the 2nd amendment
repealed by running firearm manufacturers out of business and
causing all guns to be very expensive. If those politicians don't get
the votes, they don't get to throw their monkey wrench into
the works... "Hold gun manufacturers accountable"... for what?
for making guns? What are the issues? People can get guns,
that's their only issue.

-Mike

I don't know how much being exempt from lawsuits has decreased the price of guns. Maybe an economist could figure it out, but that ain't me. I do know the price of guns have went up dramatically with scared people thinking Obama was going to take away their guns. Should we punish the fearmongering ?

Rob you are correct about guns going up when O was running for POTUS. BUT SINCE HE LEFT OFFICE gun prices came down and so did ammo prices but have spiked hugely since march. With all the panic buying by anti-gunners it is reported that it will take ammo manufacturers 2 years to catch the demand.

[Bighead]

In every election cycle, the right starts bitching about those Liberals are coming for our gun's. Well I can't remember ever seeing so many guns in my life. Hell it is now legal to walk around in public with a damn AR16 over your shoulder , and the right still isn't happy. I remember when they started crying about O Bama buying up all the ammo, and there wasn't any left. It was because all the gun guy's were so scared about losing their ammo, they were buying it all by the case, and there wasn't enough to go around. Things will never change.
John

John it has been legal to carry whatever firearm in public for a long time except in those cities/states  controlled by guess who?
Also you statement tells me you dont know one DAMN thing about guns. Just like all the other lib. (Gun grabbers). AR 16? You should be bidens vice POTUS pick. 

[hubcapsc]

I would agree there will be cases come before the courts. After a time
there will be settled law on the issues.

Only if people are foolish enough to vote for politicians who advertise
their intentions get around their inability to have the 2nd amendment
repealed by running firearm manufacturers out of business and
causing all guns to be very expensive. If those politicians don't get
the votes, they don't get to throw their monkey wrench into
the works... "Hold gun manufacturers accountable"... for what?
for making guns? What are the issues? People can get guns,
that's their only issue.

-Mike

I don't know how much being exempt from lawsuits has decreased the price of guns. Maybe an economist could figure it out, but that ain't me. I do know the price of guns have went up dramatically with scared people thinking Obama was going to take away their guns. Should we punish the fearmongering ?

supply and demand != overt partisan maneuvering to restrict gun ownership

-Mike

[_Sheffjs_]

We've been hearing this for how many years now?

A show of hands....how many have had their guns taken away?

Don't be shy, speak right up.

Only because of proper resistance to the Left.