STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

[tall73]

So, before anyone gets in a "they're coming to take my guns" panic mode...I would urge folks to look at the details of this bill.

Obviously the language of the bill would be an extreme infringement if passed

But this isn't the kind of bill that's proposed with any expectation of even getting off the ground...this is a "moral posturing" bill, where a house rep puts up a bill, that they know has no hope of passing (only 4% of bills do become law for that matter, and only 6% even make it to the phase of getting a vote), so they can put a feather in their cap in the subsequent election cycle and say "She fought for strengthening gun laws!" in soundbytes for campaign ads.

This same congresswoman puts up the same identical bill proposal in July of 2019 (H.R. 4081), and it didn't even receive a vote. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and died on the table.

Yes, it may be for show.

However, there is now a president supportive of gun control in office.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, February 4, 2021 | The White House

Q Jen, we saw some new figures today: More than 2 million guns were sold in January. That was an 80 percent jump and the second highest monthly total on record. A lot of this, of course, had to do amid all the coverage related to the Capitol riots then.

The President promised to act on day one on this issue. Of course, we know there’s only so much he can do by executive action on it. Where does this fall on his list of legislative priorities? There’s only so much capital that you have in these first 100 and first few days.

MS. PSAKI: You’re right. And he has an ambitious plan in a lot of areas and on a lot of issues.

I will say, as Vice President, and even before that, the President took on the NRA twice and won. This is an issue he is personally committed to; we are — many in this building are personally committed to. And, you know, I think he would love to see action on additional gun safety measures to protect families and children, and knows that there is support across the American public for that.

Q But, of course, I guess that’s up to him though for there to be action. So when would he take action and put some proposal before Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have a couple of proposals currently before Congress. But, again, this is an issue he is personally committed to. He has a personal — you know, has worked on it many times in the past. But I don’t have a date for you on when there would be a proposal.

 

[Sparagmos]

So, before anyone gets in a "they're coming to take my guns" panic mode...I would urge folks to look at the details of this bill.

Obviously the language of the bill would be an extreme infringement if passed

But this isn't the kind of bill that's proposed with any expectation of even getting off the ground...this is a "moral posturing" bill, where a house rep puts up a bill, that they know has no hope of passing (only 4% of bills do become law for that matter, and only 6% even make it to the phase of getting a vote), so they can put a feather in their cap in the subsequent election cycle and say "She fought for strengthening gun laws!" in soundbytes for campaign ads.

This same congresswoman puts up the same identical bill proposal in July of 2019 (H.R. 4081), and it didn't even receive a vote. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and died on the table.

Guess where this current one is right now?
View attachment 294687


Statistically and logistically speaking, the odds are overwhelming that this one will suffer the same fate.

GovTrack actually works with a company called "Skopos Labs", which is an organization that builds pretty accurate models of a bill's chance of becoming law...taking into account many different metrics, social factors, compositions of various committees and subcommittees (and the voting history of the people involved), as well as public opinion polling to determine a bill's chance of becoming law. Their modeling is reliable enough that major corporations use them to "hedge policy risk" both in terms of "pass/fail" for a bill, as well as the private sector financial impact of a bill should it pass.

Their verdict on this one:
View attachment 294690

Science Mag actually did an article about this particular organization
Artificial intelligence can predict which congressional bills will pass



These types of "virtue signal bills" are often leveraged by actors on both sides. One side's virtue signaling, becomes the other side's "chief scaremongering tool".

In this instance, what she's putting up as a virtue signal, the other side is using to scare people into opening up their wallets for the gun lobbies.

Thanks for the info! Didn’t know that kind of analysis (Skopos labs) was being done.

This thread has got me thinking about how the particular issue of gun rights/control is manipulated for profit and political gain. I’m pretty far left and in circles where there is a lot of talk about policy and long term goals. Gun control almost never comes up. It’s REALLY not a big priority for Dems or anyone to the left of the Dems. Yes, we want “socialized” medicine. Yes, we want full access to abortion, we want to raise taxes on the rich and expand all kinds of social programs and teach your kids it’s OK to be gay.

But we do not want to take your guns! Not me, not the Democratic Socialists, not Nancy Pelosi. None of us do. Most Dems wouldn’t support the Sheila Jackson’s bill and many of us are gun owners.

However, gun manufacturers make huge profits whenever people think that Clinton or Obama or Biden is “coming for your guns!” The NRA has been exposed as a sham. They pretend to represent gun owners but they really represent gun manufacturers. And Republican politicians know that fear mongering about liberals “coming for your guns” is one of the best ways to get donations.

 

[Sparagmos]

Yes, it may be for show.

However, there is now a president supportive of gun control in office.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, February 4, 2021 | The White House

Q Jen, we saw some new figures today: More than 2 million guns were sold in January. That was an 80 percent jump and the second highest monthly total on record. A lot of this, of course, had to do amid all the coverage related to the Capitol riots then.

The President promised to act on day one on this issue. Of course, we know there’s only so much he can do by executive action on it. Where does this fall on his list of legislative priorities? There’s only so much capital that you have in these first 100 and first few days.

MS. PSAKI: You’re right. And he has an ambitious plan in a lot of areas and on a lot of issues.

I will say, as Vice President, and even before that, the President took on the NRA twice and won. This is an issue he is personally committed to; we are — many in this building are personally committed to. And, you know, I think he would love to see action on additional gun safety measures to protect families and children, and knows that there is support across the American public for that.

Q But, of course, I guess that’s up to him though for there to be action. So when would he take action and put some proposal before Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have a couple of proposals currently before Congress. But, again, this is an issue he is personally committed to. He has a personal — you know, has worked on it many times in the past. But I don’t have a date for you on when there would be a proposal.

There’s a lot that falls under the umbrella of “gun control.” I believe I’ve read that even a majority of Republicans are in favor of some kind of gun control legislation. It’s just that every time we try to start the conversation, the hyperbole and scare tactics come out. Suddenly any legislation is literally a tyrannical plot to disarm the American people.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Those rights are also not protected by your AR-15. They are protected by the laws, government, law enforcement and military of your country. You just like to play predend that you having an obsolete, castrated weapon has any agency in that.

Someone breaks into my home...my right to live is protected by my Sig 226. Not law enforcement or the military. I will leave it to law enforcement to clean up the mess.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Any piece of equipment I own which can pose a danger to others requires liability insurance--a car, a plane, boat, even a steam boiler. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement which does not infringe on my right to own any of those things. It should be the same with a firearm. Own any gun you want. If it's a handgun for home protection and if the owner has training and stores it properly the cost of insurance would be nominal--that's something the free market can figure out. And there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment, express or implied, which confers the right to own a gun in secret from the government.

What exactly is gun insurance supposed to cover?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thanks for the info! Didn’t know that kind of analysis (Skopos labs) was being done.

This thread has got me thinking about how the particular issue of gun rights/control is manipulated for profit and political gain. I’m pretty far left and in circles where there is a lot of talk about policy and long term goals. Gun control almost never comes up. It’s REALLY not a big priority for Dems or anyone to the left of the Dems. Yes, we want “socialized” medicine. Yes, we want full access to abortion, we want to raise taxes on the rich and expand all kinds of social programs and teach your kids it’s OK to be gay.

But we do not want to take your guns! Not me, not the Democratic Socialists, not Nancy Pelosi. None of us do. Most Dems wouldn’t support the Sheila Jackson’s bill and many of us are gun owners.

However, gun manufacturers make huge profits whenever people think that Clinton or Obama or Biden is “coming for your guns!” The NRA has been exposed as a sham. They pretend to represent gun owners but they really represent gun manufacturers. And Republican politicians know that fear mongering about liberals “coming for your guns” is one of the best ways to get donations.

The irony is that most of the major wins for gun owners have been courtesy of the "Second Amendment Foundation" (a much smaller org with much less funding, but two very good lawyers at the helm).

For instance, the DC v. Heller ruling in favor of individual gun rights was thanks to 2AF, not the NRA, although, the NRA filed a motion to speak at the end of the case (after the court had declared they were ready to rule) and tried to claim credit for it.

Alan Gura - Wikipedia
This guy was the one who's racked up the major wins for gun owners, not Ted Nugent or Wayne LaPierre.

In fact, Alan Gura had some pretty choice words for the NRA after they tried to piggy-back off his win in court.

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case"


To your other statement about most democrats not having much interest in disarming people, that's 100% true. If that were the case, it would be unthinkable for the to use the defensive strategy of declaring themselves as gun owners when confronted about the issue. If that was their intent, they'd all have the "Beto Reponse" of "Heck (it wasn't heck) yes, we want to take..."

And not running organizations like this one:
Gun Owners for Safety


One thing conservatives will need to wrap their heads around is that calls for universal background checks don't equate to "they're trying to take our guns".

Drives me nuts...

I'm someone who enjoys guns, both for the recreational and protection aspects, I have a CCW permit and own 17 firearms...I have zero issues with universal background checks (I've submitted to them 17 times in order to make my purchases) or a mental health screening qualifier for gun ownership.

Per the DC v Heller ruling by SCOTUS, it affirms that's gun ownership is an individual right, but not an unlimited one. Meaning, a person who has schizophrenia or severe bipolar being prohibited from owning a gun isn't an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

 

[rambot]

This bill is insane.. Honestly, as Christians, if this law is passed are we to comply with it? This is making our families vulnerable to give that much detail to the general public where people who would want to do us harm would have access to it.

What? Specifically you ask this "as Christians"? You think this particular issue is a Christian issue whether you live in France, Canada, Israel, or the us?

Or that MAYBE this is a political issue that should not be conflated to ones faith.

 

[Sparagmos]

The irony is that most of the major wins for gun owners have been courtesy of the "Second Amendment Foundation" (a much smaller org with much less funding, but two very good lawyers at the helm).

For instance, the DC v. Heller ruling in favor of individual gun rights was thanks to 2AF, not the NRA, although, the NRA filed a motion to speak at the end of the case (after the court had declared they were ready to rule) and tried to claim credit for it.

Alan Gura - Wikipedia
This guy was the one who's racked up the major wins for gun owners, not Ted Nugent or Wayne LaPierre.

In fact, Alan Gura had some pretty choice words for the NRA after they tried to piggy-back off his win in court.

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case"


To your other statement about most democrats not having much interest in disarming people, that's 100% true. If that were the case, it would be unthinkable for the to use the defensive strategy of declaring themselves as gun owners when confronted about the issue. If that was their intent, they'd all have the "Beto Reponse" of "Heck (it wasn't heck) yes, we want to take..."

And not running organizations like this one:
Gun Owners for Safety


One thing conservatives will need to wrap their heads around is that calls for universal background checks don't equate to "they're trying to take our guns".

Drives me nuts...

I'm someone who enjoys guns, both for the recreational and protection aspects, I have a CCW permit and own 17 firearms...I have zero issues with universal background checks (I've submitted to them 17 times in order to make my purchases) or a mental health screening qualifier for gun ownership.

Per the DC v Heller ruling by SCOTUS, it affirms that's gun ownership is an individual right, but not an unlimited one. Meaning, a person who has schizophrenia or severe bipolar being prohibited from owning a gun isn't an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

I never even heard of the 2AF. Interesting.

It’s really funny when you hear about the “socialist plot to take our guns," as a LOT of socialists own guns!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It’s really funny when you hear about the “socialist plot to take our guns," as a LOT of socialists own guns!

I have actually noticed that...

I honestly think it comes from a place of "cautious optimism" for lack of a better way to describe it.

I'm not a socialist, and have serious issues with that system of economy (as I think the unavoidable end result is strict authoritarianism)...but I tend to mingle with people of all walks.

I actually am in the unique situation where I have 2 co-workers who lived under former socialist regimes (and are still somewhat sympathetic to the underlying ideas)... One from Cuba (he moved here in the late 90's), the other spent the first 11 years of his life living in the former East Germany. They're both big gun guys. In talking with them, it seems like a case where, while they still are somewhat sympathetic to the underlying ideas, they understand that when it goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong, and don't want to be "unprepared" for if/when it does.

 

[loveofourlord]

That sounds excessive. Nobody but the gun owner itself should need to pass a psych evaluation.

And really, I don't understand the need for that one, either. Those evaluations are notoriously unsure, and once the first person does a bad thing with the gun although they were cleared, the entire process is called into question.

it's excessive but makes sense when you realize that some of the big school shootings were with the parents guns. I don't agree with it, but yu can see why. Maybe bigger penalties if someones guns are used in a killing and can't be shown that they were safely put away.

 

[Jamdoc]

What? Specifically you ask this "as Christians"? You think this particular issue is a Christian issue whether you live in France, Canada, Israel, or the us?

Or that MAYBE this is a political issue that should not be conflated to ones faith.

No I mean is this a Romans 13 thing where we comply with the law of our land, or do we disobey because it's an immoral law?

 

[rambot]

No I mean is this a Romans 13 thing where we comply with the law of our land, or do we disobey because it's an immoral law?

What are other examples of laws that are immoral in the United States that can just be ignored?

 

[tall73]

No I mean is this a Romans 13 thing where we comply with the law of our land, or do we disobey because it's an immoral law?

The only reason to disobey a law is if it goes against God's commands to us. So in Acts 5 for instance when the Sanhedrin told the disciples not to preach in the name of Jesus, Peter and the disciples replied:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”

29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

Similarly in the OT when told to bow down to a statue of gold Shadrach,Meshack and Abed-Nego:

Daniel 3:13 Then Nebuchadnezzar, in rage and fury, gave the command to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. So they brought these men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the gold image which I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, and you fall down and worship the image which I have made, good! But if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?”

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”

Keep in mind that when Paul and Peter said to submit to the authorities the emperor was Nero. He was known as a tyrant even by the standards of the day. But they were still to submit whenever it did not go against God's commands.

Both Paul and Peter were killed for their faith under Nero, but were willing to suffer for Christ.

 

[Sparagmos]

No I mean is this a Romans 13 thing where we comply with the law of our land, or do we disobey because it's an immoral law?

What about this bill is immoral? Some could say it violates the constitution but the Bible says nothing on the matter.

 

[98cwitr]

No, Because you do everything in your power, to take rights away from people. That I care about.

Like the right to bear arms?

 

[98cwitr]

This is an asinine mis-reading of history. An armed citizenry would have done nothing in the Polish campaign of 1939.

In fact, Poland had an armed citizenry at the outbreak of the German invasion. Poland had one of the highest rates of personal firearm possession in Europe throughout the 1930s. So much so that firearms violence was a distinct problem in Poland's various 'ethnic' areas.

Despite the 1919 and 1932 gun laws requiring a firearms licence, there were quite literally millions of firearms in personal possession in the country - mostly a motley collection of bolt action rifles left over from WW1 and from the 1921 war.

Then there were the various 'official' paramilitary groups. The Polish Rifleman's Association, the largest such, had around half a million members in 1939 and had trained ~3 million men between 1921 and 1939.



Except, that this is completely wrong.

The Polish Government in the 1920s 1930s supported private firearms ownership through the paramilitary groups, civil defense organisations and the various local government militias.

While the frontline Army numbered ~600,000 at the outbreak of war, Poland had around 2.5 million trained reservists. The strength of Poland's reserves and militias was one of the reasons it was considered - before 1939 - as one of Europe's leading military powers.

I posted sources...I'd appreciate the returned respect.

 

[98cwitr]

So, before anyone gets in a "they're coming to take my guns" panic mode...I would urge folks to look at the details of this bill.

Obviously the language of the bill would be an extreme infringement if passed

But this isn't the kind of bill that's proposed with any expectation of even getting off the ground...this is a "moral posturing" bill, where a house rep puts up a bill, that they know has no hope of passing (only 4% of bills do become law for that matter, and only 6% even make it to the phase of getting a vote), so they can put a feather in their cap in the subsequent election cycle and say "She fought for strengthening gun laws!" in soundbytes for campaign ads.

This same congresswoman puts up the same identical bill proposal in July of 2019 (H.R. 4081), and it didn't even receive a vote. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and died on the table.

Guess where this current one is right now?
View attachment 294687


Statistically and logistically speaking, the odds are overwhelming that this one will suffer the same fate.

GovTrack actually works with a company called "Skopos Labs", which is an organization that builds pretty accurate models of a bill's chance of becoming law...taking into account many different metrics, social factors, compositions of various committees and subcommittees (and the voting history of the people involved), as well as public opinion polling to determine a bill's chance of becoming law. Their modeling is reliable enough that major corporations use them to "hedge policy risk" both in terms of "pass/fail" for a bill, as well as the private sector financial impact of a bill should it pass.

Their verdict on this one:
View attachment 294690

Science Mag actually did an article about this particular organization
Artificial intelligence can predict which congressional bills will pass



These types of "virtue signal bills" are often leveraged by actors on both sides. One side's virtue signaling, becomes the other side's "chief scaremongering tool".

In this instance, what she's putting up as a virtue signal, the other side is using to scare people into opening up their wallets for the gun lobbies.

Dems have full control of 2 of the 3 branches. If Biden packs the court this is very likely to be enacted. That's the concern. In 2019 it had zero chance...now it's got quite a good chance.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No I mean is this a Romans 13 thing where we comply with the law of our land, or do we disobey because it's an immoral law?

I thought the relevant scripture was the "Book of Armaments".

 

[Gene2memE]

I posted sources...I'd appreciate the returned respect.

You posted A source. On Germany. Not on Poland. It didn't mention Poland at all.

Most of my information on Poland comes 'Poland Between the Wars: 1918 - 1939', edited by by Peter D Stachura. Primarily chapter 6, with deals with the Polish armed forces and defense plans for 1939. I'm not copying out slabs of it though.

Here's the US Government's 1942 assessment of the German invasion of Poland.
HyperWar: The German Campaign in Poland: September 1 to October 5, 1939

Notice that nowhere does it attribute a lack of firearms ownership by the general public as contributing to Poland's defeat.

Here's another US Government summary, this time of the Polish armed forces pre WW2.
https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-20/CMH_Pub_104-20.pdf

Some highlights:

"Poland's universal conscription program, modeled on that of France, had 204,600 conscripts and volunteers in Army service in 1939."

"As of 1939, 1,500,000 reservists of the classes 1898-1915 (men 24 to 42 years of age) could be called up on mobilization. An additional 560,000 reservists of the 1888-97 period would also be available if necessary, but their age (43 to 52) would restrict the use of these troops to security duties and work in the rear areas."

"A National Guard (Obrona Narodowa) also existed, to supplement the active Army and reserve units. The National Guard consisted of men who had completed their training but were without mobilization assignments, men who had not received the prescribed conscript training for one reason or another (including a large number who had been surplus to the draft quotas), and volunteers not yet subject to conscription (21 years of age). The weapons and uniforms issued the National Guard were retained in their homes, and ammunition at the local depots of the active units" ​

I'd also note that Polish paramilitary and civil militia forces participated actively in several battles in the invasion, most notably the siege of Warsaw. Germany's response to entrenched ground defenses was steady, grinding artillery barrages and carpet bombing.

 

[Jamdoc]

What are other examples of laws that are immoral in the United States that can just be ignored?

Church Lockdowns while bars and restaurants and strip clubs and casinos are open