COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Logan1]

I have bought guns under two sets of circumstances: from a gun store or dealer with a FFL, or from a friend, or a friend of a friend. When I've bought guns over the internet, they move from one FFL to another FFL, and a background check is required. If a buddy wants to sell me another Glock, I'll buy it from him, because I know him, and neither one of us has reason to require a background check.

Now, have you ever been offered a gun for sale from a complete stranger?

I haven't either.



In contrast, the elimination of ID-verified voting has done exactly what for the integrity of the electoral system?

I've never been offered a gun for sale from a stranger and I wouldn't buy one if it was. Although I don't see a need for a background check when buying from a friend, relative, or their friends, if they are going to be required for private sales then make them costless and convenient.

Requiring IDs to vote decreases the likelihood of voter fraud. Providing free IDs provides a benefit to the recipient and takes away the argument about disenfranchising those who cannot afford one.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Although I don't see a need for a background check when buying from a friend, relative, or their friends, if they are going to be required for private sales then make them costless and convenient.

I don't either, and I'm not going to do one, free or not.

[Browndog]

Apologies for the Twitter link, I can't locate a clean feed...

https://tinyurl.com/yck447zc

A two minute video on insurance and excess mortality numbers

[Gilead]

If people start starving, a LOT of shit is going to happen to them. Look at what is going on in Sri Lanka. Don't get me wrong, the violent uprising won't necessarily lead to something good (see: French Revolution, Russian Revolution), but intentionally starving the populace is suicide for the upper class of society. People won't be able to just wave away their need to eat (like they can wave away their civil liberties for a feeling of "safety"), and the desperation that comes from hunger can make people really fucking wild. It certainly does that with animals. Couple that with people being so unfamiliar with it, they won't have a tolerance level for it. People aren't going to think, "it's okay I'm starving to death, it's for the greater good." No amount of patronizing elites trying to convince them of that is going to override their sense of self preservation.

You have a point. I suppose that's why they are trying to take away your guns.

"Stillbirths, Miscarriages and Abortions in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Women Evidence from an Israeli hospital"

They let him post this on Twitter???


Do not make the mistake of thinking that they are capable of taking away our guns.

The operative word of the sentence I used was "trying".

Why the Bill Gates global health empire promises more empire and less public health - The Grayzone

[Mark Rippetoe]

Apologies for the Twitter link, I can't locate a clean feed...

https://tinyurl.com/yck447zc

A two minute video on insurance and excess mortality numbers

They let him post this on Twitter???

You have a point. I suppose that's why they are trying to take away your guns.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that they are capable of taking away our guns.

[VNV]

They let him post this on Twitter???

Musk doesn’t own it yet, but his shadow might be looming.

[David A. Rowe]

The obvious reason to say we need stronger legislation with background checks is to pass laws which expand power of the government to infringe on civil liberties. Of course we already have background checks, but does the average American know this?

It's for the children (we already have numerous programs and spend billions on children).

It's for your health (you have the best access to healthcare in the world even if it's not free).

We need to stop terrorism (the LE and Int communities already found out about it, but nothing was done).

It's emotional decision making on the front, and a mix of expanding powers and pork barrel spending around back. The insane shit people like Kamala Harris say DID work for a very long time. The government can't fix it, but it can put itself in charge of it.

Maybe bring back the mental hospitals, though.

[Brian Harlin]

Accurate description of the “Experts”
why public health "experts" never want to fight "the amateurs"

[Jovan Dragisic]

You have a point. I suppose that's why they are trying to take away your guns.

All of this other shit is a smoke screen for cashless. The only thing the cabal is interested in is the full control of money. They have the Japanese experience in which they organized a thirty year demolition of the economy, but it only made people more prone to cash. A similar thing happened in the EU in 2020, bank notes in circulation grew at a record pace. The plan is not proceeding well.

[DylanClarke]

Although I don't see a need for a background check when buying from a friend, relative, or their friends, if they are going to be required for private sales then make them costless and convenient.

Costless government services are like green energy; they don't exist. They're still using your tax money to pay someone to do the background checks and either raising taxes or reducing spending on something else to do it.

Convenient background checks will still be a way to fuck with law-abiding gun owners. Right now, my wife and I own a number of guns. On paper most of them are mine, a couple of them are hers. When one of us wants to go shooting or carry a particular gun, we pick it up and take it. When my wife wants to carry the Glock 26 that I bought, from a legal point of view I give that gun to her, she possesses it while she's out carrying it, then when she comes home she gives it back to me. Under "common sense gun laws" that's two background checks required or we're technically breaking the law - which is fine unless she uses that gun in self defense and then we both get charged with firearms offenses. Her self defense claim is probably voided by carrying an "illegal" gun as well.

So, what would we do under these laws if we wanted to stay strictly legal? We do the background checks and divide our guns into mine and hers based on who uses them, with no overlap other than maybe some range use where we're both there. The next hurdle we hit is the requirement that we store our guns securely so that no-one else can get access to them. That's pretty reasonable, and all we have to do is put them in our gun safe. Except we don't. I have to put my guns in my gun safe that my wife is unable to access, and she has to put hers in her gun safe that I am unable to access. Not only do we have to buy a new safe, but if one of us goes out while the other is at home, the one going out can't leave their safe keys at home with the other one.

Of course all of this could be avoided by specific provisions in the laws to exclude people in the same household from having to perform background checks to transfer firearms - but that doesn't seem to be included in any of these proposed laws.

Requiring IDs to vote decreases the likelihood of voter fraud. Providing free IDs provides a benefit to the recipient and takes away the argument about disenfranchising those who cannot afford one.

Isn't it curious that almost everyone who wants more gun laws believes that free voter IDs are a bad idea because of the hypothetical person who has no ID and is too busy working to go and get one to vote?