Kentucky Armory Club

If you voted for obama in 2008 then you really shouldn't care about a bump stock ban or even the 2nd Amendmentfor that matter. He posted about reinstating the AWB on his website and was even outspoken about it with the original AWB author, Joe "Shotgun" Biden.
So for you to chime in every time that "The Sky Is Falling!!!" look in the mirror every once in a while.
Thanks for your 2008 vote that caused me to sell off my AK74 because ammo for that gun became gold laced unicorn shit.
Sometimes you really make me wonder.

Toddstang wrote:...Thanks for your 2008 vote that caused me to sell off my AK74 because ammo for that gun became gold laced unicorn shit.
Sometimes you really make me wonder.

Obama signed no gun control laws, and 5.45 ammo is cheap.

In hindsight, who made the wrong decision?

LOL,
Your mental games may work with children but not with me.
Was wanting to see if you'd pick up the gun control measure obama passed that I didn't list but I never expected anything less from you.
Bump stock VS. Ammo ban
Any AK type imported firearm with original barrel
Parts kit AKs , no import of original barrel plus other parts
Gun Trusts must now be signed by a LEO or local sheriff for approval.
Yea bud, and I bet you never even fingered a bump stock.
You boo hoo'd all of 2016 before Trump even took office. You create your own fake hatred and it shows.
I'm sure your Aleppo guy would of been a hoot in the White House.

And of course
Perhaps the most significant Obama gun control measure was not a law but a rule that required the Social Security Administration to report disability-benefit recipients with mental health conditions to the FBI’s background check system, which is used to screen firearm buyers. Obama's successor, Republican President Donald Trump, rescinded the rule in 2017.

Obama also made curtailing gun violence a central theme of his second-term agenda after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012. The president signed executive orders calling for mandatory criminal background checks on gun-buyers and several other measures that were unpopular in Congress including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

But he was unable to win passage of new laws and insisted authorities do more to enforce measures already on the books.

Critics, however, point to Obama's issuance of 23 executive actions on gun violence in January 2016 as proof that the Democratic president was anti-gun.

Yea, obama was a patriot

Obama banned AKs? Don’t think so. Import of Kalashnikov Concern’s products were banned (along with a number of other Russian products) as part of the sanctions against Russia post-Crimea. Last year that ban was expanded to include VEPRs by...President Trump.

You really need to do your homework better. The Obama administration *removed* the CLEO sign-off requirement for individual NFA purchases. They were never required for trusts.

You are correct on exactly one point: I’ve never used a bump fire stock. Because they’re stupid.

Of course Obama was anti-gun. The difference between him and Trump (or McCain, or Romney, or Trump) is that the NRA would stand up to him. They’ll let a Republican do whatever he wants.

Sigh,
Never said he banned AKs.

Toddstang wrote:Sigh,
Never said he banned AKs.

Then what barrel ban are you talking about? The only one I’m familiar with happened in 2005...under Bush 43.

https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/obama- ... an-rifles/




https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/obama- ... an-rifles/

Toddstang wrote:https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/obama- ... an-rifles/

Toddstang wrote:https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/obama- ... an-rifles/

I already cited that one. It was the ban on Kalashnikov Concern’s products, since they are a state defense entity. It was part of the Russian sanctions after the invasion of Crimea. The one Trump expanded to include VEPRs.

Are you next going to tell me that I misunderstood your claim that Obama required trusts to get CLEO sign-offs?

Okay, you're right on sign off. It's all the other finger prints, photo and what ever other BS your hero president signed off on.
Still way more anti gun than Trump but you wont admit it.

And you were good with the Social security law he passed?
No rebuttal about that either huh? Just nit pick what I may have mistaken but the facts are something you wont argue with.
Bump stock seems like a very small ant compared to the giant dinosaur the previous president had.

You’re missing the point entirely.

Obama was and is anti-gun...through and through. That’s what made him *less* dangerous to our cause. Because the NRA, the 2AF, etc fought him tooth and nail. He was forced to allow firearms into national parks. He was forced to remove the CLEO sign-off for NFA purchases. He was stymied each and every time he tried to act in this issue.

If we’d had McCain or Romney or Trump in office in December 2012 we’d have an assault weapons ban in place today. Hell, Romney had already signed one as governor.

When Trump creates a felony out of whole cloth the NRA issued a statement of “disappointment.” Please.

Toddstang wrote:And you were good with the Social security law he passed?
No rebuttal about that either huh? Just nit pick what I may have mistaken but the facts are something you wont argue with.
Bump stock seems like a very small ant compared to the giant dinosaur the previous president had.

I actually don’t have a huge issue with it. The requirement was that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”

There were indeed a *few* people who were unjustly caught up in this, but it was vastly overblown. The good news is that this has been fixed, so folks who are on SSI for severe mental disorders but who haven’t been involuntarily committed can now pass a NICS check.

Frailer wrote:

Toddstang wrote:And you were good with the Social security law he passed?
No rebuttal about that either huh? Just nit pick what I may have mistaken but the facts are something you wont argue with.
Bump stock seems like a very small ant compared to the giant dinosaur the previous president had.

I actually don’t have a huge issue with it. The requirement was that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”

There were indeed a *few* people who were unjustly caught up in this, but it was vastly overblown. The good news is that this has been fixed, so folks who are on SSI for severe mental disorders but who haven’t been involuntarily committed can now pass a NICS check.

You're missing the point entirely. This was allowing citizens to lose their rights without due process.

The bump stock ban is probably going to be challenged in court anything and looking at it I wonder if it was intentionally worded, namely the 90 day period, to ensure it would be overturned. I could be wrong in this case but Trump seems to have knack for playing the game this way.

Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Today, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at http://www.bumpstockcase.com.

The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. The lawsuit, captioned as Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

BREAKING: Firearms Policy Coalition, Others File Lawsuit to Block Trump Bump Stock Ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... stock-ban/

Frailer wrote:

Toddstang wrote:And you were good with the Social security law he passed?
No rebuttal about that either huh? Just nit pick what I may have mistaken but the facts are something you wont argue with.
Bump stock seems like a very small ant compared to the giant dinosaur the previous president had.

I actually don’t have a huge issue with it. The requirement was that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”

There were indeed a *few* people who were unjustly caught up in this, but it was vastly overblown. The good news is that this has been fixed, so folks who are on SSI for severe mental disorders but who haven’t been involuntarily committed can now pass a NICS check.

So disabled VETS, people injured at work who were forced into SSI, and numerous other legit folks should not have been able to own a firearm?
Yea, fixed now but your Trump hate is really obvious.
I'm sure if obama had a 3rd term, you'd of voted for him again.
The Constitution is just a bunch of words to some people.

Toddstang wrote:

Frailer wrote:

Toddstang wrote:And you were good with the Social security law he passed?
No rebuttal about that either huh? Just nit pick what I may have mistaken but the facts are something you wont argue with.
Bump stock seems like a very small ant compared to the giant dinosaur the previous president had.

I actually don’t have a huge issue with it. The requirement was that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”

There were indeed a *few* people who were unjustly caught up in this, but it was vastly overblown. The good news is that this has been fixed, so folks who are on SSI for severe mental disorders but who haven’t been involuntarily committed can now pass a NICS check.

So disabled VETS, people injured at work who were forced into SSI, and numerous other legit folks should not have been able to own a firearm?
Yea, fixed now but your Trump hate is really obvious.
I'm sure if obama had a 3rd term, you'd of voted for him again.
The Constitution is just a bunch of words to some people.

Did you actually read what I wrote? People with physical injuries were not reported to NICS--only those who were adjudicated as being incapable of handling their own affairs.

(Edited to add: For what it's worth, I spoke out against that particular action at the time, not because I was opposed to it in general principle, but the devil was in the details. There were people who were unjustly denied their rights as a result. Similarly, I agreed with the sentiment that doctors have no place asking patients about gun ownership, as that is outside their lane. Nevertheless, the way some states approached fixing it--namely, trampling on the First Amendment--was dead wrong.)

It's true that I can't stand Trump, just as I can't stand Hillary. They are both narcissistic shitheads who believe rules don't apply to them. I think I've said this many times previously.

I didn't vote for Obama's second term.

As to your final point, I agree wholeheartedly. Most folks will support "their guy" regardless of what he does. For example, President Trump just wiped his feet on the Constitution, yet we have guys on gun forums blowing smoke about Obama and Hillary, neither of which are relevant to the current discussion.

What Donald J. Trump just did was as wrong as two boys fucking, yet the sheep give not a shit.

I am sick and fucking tired of those who equate gun rights advocacy with the Republican Party. The Republicans will screw you over just as quickly as the Democrats; the only difference is the Democrats are up front about it.

Again
Again
Again
The executive branch is required under the constitution to enforce current laws. Enforcing or not enforcing current laws at will, as Obama did, IS unconstitutional.
What was at question is whether or not bump stocks fall under current gun laws, you know which ones. Don't like that law(s) then get it removed. And again while I would prefer that they not be banned I've always felt they could fall under those laws as they are written. The current on the books laws are the problem.

Now it's in the judicial's side of court (pun!) which is their job

With backing from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and key chairmen, Democrats will move to require federal background checks on all gun sales, part of a broader effort by the party to advance long-stalled gun control measures.

While the proposal won’t get through the Republican-run Senate, much less become law, getting through the House will be a win for the gun-control movement, which has little to cheer about since President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

Spin much?

Congressional Democrats Plan to Vote On Outlawing All Private Gun Sales
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... gun-sales/

WLJ wrote:Again
Again
Again
The executive branch is required under the constitution to enforce current laws. Enforcing or not enforcing current laws at will, as Obama did, IS unconstitutional.
What was at question is whether or not bump stocks fall under current gun laws, you know which ones. Don't like that law(s) then get it removed. And again while I would prefer that they not be banned I've always felt they could fall under those laws as they are written. The current on the books laws are the problem.

Now it's in the judicial's side of court (pun!) which is their job

I will stipulate to all of Obama’s failures...and they are many.

They are also completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Whatever

And again, it wouldn't surprise me once bit if it was intentionally worded in such a way as to insure it being tossed out by the courts. I wouldn't put it pass him to win by losing.

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:Again
Again
Again
The executive branch is required under the constitution to enforce current laws. Enforcing or not enforcing current laws at will, as Obama did, IS unconstitutional.
What was at question is whether or not bump stocks fall under current gun laws, you know which ones. Don't like that law(s) then get it removed. And again while I would prefer that they not be banned I've always felt they could fall under those laws as they are written. The current on the books laws are the problem.

Now it's in the judicial's side of court (pun!) which is their job

I will stipulate to all of Obama’s failures...and they are many.

They are also completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

LMAO,

Bail out! Bail out! Losing this battle, better bail!!!