Biden dropping Gun EOs tomorrow

theLBC

Shiftless
Supporter
PX Member
Minuteman
Jun 21, 2019
8,229
17,103
so did they add the clapping sound after his speech?
sounded like a lot more people clapping than there were people there.

WKYoEHFa.jpeg
 

TexPatriot

Major Hide Member
PX Member
Minuteman
Jul 20, 2020
1,935
4,288
What would they do if we arranged a million man march on DC a***d......they cant arrest us all. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Peaceful of course to show them we arent taking their BS anymore.

We are already called insurrectionists. What's to lose at this point......

Doc
I'm down for it. But expect it to be a million man + a buttload of Antifa sent in by the Democrats disguised as Patriots just like Jan. 6th. to riot and do Antifa shit. The days of peaceful protests are over.
 

Jefe's Dope

Red Forman
PX Member
Minuteman
  • Dec 20, 2017
    9,693
    70,148
    There should be no estimate that wide. Those indians were well known, they locked up William Bent{Who was married to a member of the tribe} and other locals, while they went and did it.

    Ok, went and looked "148 of Black Kettle's followers."

    The numbers are dependent on where you look. I'll go with too many.
     

    TurboTrout

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    876
    672
    East Coast

    The only reason you disarm citizens is if you want to do something that you think the average Joe would go to the extremes of shooting you to prevent you from doing.

    I always ask crazy anti constitutional people,
    “You must be planning something normal people would risk their lives to stop huh? So you a pedophile/rapist/burglar/arsonist/victimizer? Because those are the only type people the average Joe would ever even consider firing at in defense, so which are you”
     

    RGStory

    Sergeant of the Hide
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 31, 2020
    234
    243
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Didn't watch.

    Other than Kamala always standing by looking like some budget Mortal Kombat character, what did captain muppet say?

    Same bullshit?

    Not much new that was not already in the news releases. It was a laundry list of campaign promises without a clear plan to move forward. He made a comment about his primary legislative goal being the removal of restriction on lawsuits against gun companies.

    The one thing he will be able to execute without contest through either the courts or the Senate, is the resumption of Justice Department reports on gun trafficking and directing several agencies to allocate more money for violence intervention programs.

    The real substance was after Biden spoke when Merrick Garland explained their actual steps moving forward. Most news channels stopped just before Merrick spoke, so I doubt many actually listened.

    I summarized the Key steps that Garland presented for your review:

    - Resumption and update of studies of criminal gun trafficking to include plastic, 3D printed and self-assembly modern guns.

    - Internal evaluation of how the existing tools and analysis of criminal cases and investigations show us about modern gun trafficking patterns. (in conjunction with the report)

    -Within 30 days issuance of a rule to plug the gap in regulation that allows incomplete firearms to be sold without serial numbers and background checks.

    - Within 60 days, ATF will issue a proposed rule that will clarify stabilizing devices on pistols as falling under statues for short barreled rifles.

    - Publication of model red flag legislation for states to adopt to prevent access to firearms of people who are a clear danger to themselves or others.

    - Directing one billion in funding for dozens of grant programs that can be used to support intervention strategies at reducing gun violence through public outreach, hospital based violence intervention services and community programs.

    - The President will nominate David Shipman to be the next ATF director.


    If you are interested, see -> https://www.c-span.org/video/?51063...violence-epidemic-announces-executive-actions
     
    Last edited:

    supercorndogs

    Ham Fisted Gorilla
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 17, 2014
    7,186
    6,607
    Colorado
    The numbers are dependent on where you look. I'll go with too many.
    500 is a ludicrous number. The camp was no near big enough for more than 500 people.


    By the summer of 1864, the situation had reached a boiling point. Southern Cheyenne hardliners, along with allied Kiowa and Arapaho bands, raided American settlements for livestock and supplies. Sometimes they took captives, generally only women and children, to adopt into their tribes as replacements for lost members. On July 11, 1864, indigenous people killed a family of settlers, an attack which the white people called the Hungate massacre after the family. Pro-war white people displayed the scalped bodies in Denver. Colorado governor John Evans believed tribal chiefs had ordered the attack and were intent on a full-scale war.

    Evans issued a proclamation ordering all "Friendly Indians of the Plains" to report to military posts or be considered "hostile". He sought and gained from the War Department authorization to establish the Third Colorado Cavalry. Colonel John M. Chivington led the unit, composed predominantly of "100-daysers", who enlisted for limited 100-day terms specifically for fighting against the Cheyenne and Arapaho.

    Black Kettle decided to accept Evans' offer and entered negotiations. On September 28, he concluded a peace settlement at Fort Weld outside Denver. The agreement assigned the Southern Cheyenne to the Sand Creek reservation and required them to report to Fort Lyon, formerly Fort Wise. Black Kettle believed the agreement would ensure the safety of his people. After he went to the reservation, the commanding officer at the fort was replaced by one who was an ally of Chivington.

    Ambitious, Chivington felt pressure from Governor Evans to make use of the Third Colorado Cavalry before their terms expired at the end of 1864. On November 28, Chivington arrived with 700 men at Fort Lyon. According to an eyewitness, John S. Smith:

    At dawn on November 29, Chivington attacked the Sand Creek reservation; the event became known as the Sand Creek massacre. Most of the warriors were out hunting. Following Indian agent instructions, Black Kettle flew an American flag and a white flag from his tipi, but the signal was ignored. The 3rd Colorado Cavalry killed 163 Cheyenne by shooting or stabbing. They burned down the village encampment. Most of the victims were women and children. For months afterward, members of the militia displayed trophies in Denver of their battle, including body parts they had taken for souvenirs.[8]
     

    Jefe's Dope

    Red Forman
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Dec 20, 2017
    9,693
    70,148
    500 is a ludicrous number. The camp was no near big enough for more than 500 people.


    By the summer of 1864, the situation had reached a boiling point. Southern Cheyenne hardliners, along with allied Kiowa and Arapaho bands, raided American settlements for livestock and supplies. Sometimes they took captives, generally only women and children, to adopt into their tribes as replacements for lost members. On July 11, 1864, indigenous people killed a family of settlers, an attack which the white people called the Hungate massacre after the family. Pro-war white people displayed the scalped bodies in Denver. Colorado governor John Evans believed tribal chiefs had ordered the attack and were intent on a full-scale war.

    Evans issued a proclamation ordering all "Friendly Indians of the Plains" to report to military posts or be considered "hostile". He sought and gained from the War Department authorization to establish the Third Colorado Cavalry. Colonel John M. Chivington led the unit, composed predominantly of "100-daysers", who enlisted for limited 100-day terms specifically for fighting against the Cheyenne and Arapaho.

    Black Kettle decided to accept Evans' offer and entered negotiations. On September 28, he concluded a peace settlement at Fort Weld outside Denver. The agreement assigned the Southern Cheyenne to the Sand Creek reservation and required them to report to Fort Lyon, formerly Fort Wise. Black Kettle believed the agreement would ensure the safety of his people. After he went to the reservation, the commanding officer at the fort was replaced by one who was an ally of Chivington.

    Ambitious, Chivington felt pressure from Governor Evans to make use of the Third Colorado Cavalry before their terms expired at the end of 1864. On November 28, Chivington arrived with 700 men at Fort Lyon. According to an eyewitness, John S. Smith:

    At dawn on November 29, Chivington attacked the Sand Creek reservation; the event became known as the Sand Creek massacre. Most of the warriors were out hunting. Following Indian agent instructions, Black Kettle flew an American flag and a white flag from his tipi, but the signal was ignored. The 3rd Colorado Cavalry killed 163 Cheyenne by shooting or stabbing. They burned down the village encampment. Most of the victims were women and children. For months afterward, members of the militia displayed trophies in Denver of their battle, including body parts they had taken for souvenirs.[8]

    Not sure what you're getting at or why, but I'm not here to argue with you about it. I gave an estimate given from the same source, Wikipedia, as you're quoting. It's not MY number.

    The Sand Creek massacre (also known as the Chivington massacre, the battle of Sand Creek or the massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was a massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho people by the U.S. Army in the American Indian Wars that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 675-man force of the Third Colorado Cavalry[3] under the command of U.S. Volunteers Colonel John Chivington attacked and destroyed a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho people in southeastern Colorado Territory,[4] killing and mutilating an estimated 70–500 Native Americans, about two-thirds of whom were women and children.[2][5] The location has been designated the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site and is administered by the National Park Service. This was part of a series of events known as the Colorado War and was preceded by the Hungate massacre.[6]
     

    Srikaleak

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    May 11, 2018
    969
    569
    How does one apply for the $1 Billion dollars of grant funding? I want to know how I can help. 😉
     

    supercorndogs

    Ham Fisted Gorilla
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 17, 2014
    7,186
    6,607
    Colorado
    Not sure what you're getting at or why, but I'm not here to argue with you about it. I gave an estimate given from the same source, Wikipedia, as you're quoting. It's not MY number.

    The Sand Creek massacre (also known as the Chivington massacre, the battle of Sand Creek or the massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was a massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho people by the U.S. Army in the American Indian Wars that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 675-man force of the Third Colorado Cavalry[3] under the command of U.S. Volunteers Colonel John Chivington attacked and destroyed a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho people in southeastern Colorado Territory,[4] killing and mutilating an estimated 70–500 Native Americans, about two-thirds of whom were women and children.[2][5] The location has been designated the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site and is administered by the National Park Service. This was part of a series of events known as the Colorado War and was preceded by the Hungate massacre.[6]

    500 is a ridiculous overestimate. You posted it, I disputed it. If you don't want to talk about it, quit talking about it.
     

    TurboTrout

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    876
    672
    East Coast
    I welcome his study on with whom /where gun crimes are occurring, as well as trafficking.

    I don’t think the left is going to like the findings, kinda like obamas CDC study on gun crimes, yeah that went under the rug really quick lol

     
    • Like
    Reactions: R-B and Longshot231

    Srikaleak

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    May 11, 2018
    969
    569
    I mean, you'd have to be pretty naive that the loophole of using a brace to get around NFA laws wouldn't be patched up once the things became popular enough. We all knew this was coming.

    Now that braces will become useless since you have to SBR anyways, I wonder what will happen to the brace companies...

    But I'm getting ahead of myself. Nothing concrete has been written and signed yet. This may just be another setup to spur more gun sales to exacerbate an already strained supply chain.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bender

    Shooter McGavin

    NTRP TEAM MEMBER #33
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 22, 2009
    1,218
    1,750
    Some where in the US
    its law until a court says it not.

    usually there are immediate lawsuits by either side, but until there is a ruling it stands

    trump tried that as well but the dems had the lawsuits and courts ready the very second he signed it so many did not get off the ground.
    It may be a regulation, but is not a LAW
     

    RGStory

    Sergeant of the Hide
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 31, 2020
    234
    243
    Oklahoma City, OK
    I welcome his study on with whom /where gun crimes are occurring, as well as trafficking.

    I don’t think the left is going to like the findings, kinda like obamas CDC study on gun crimes, yeah that went under the rug really quick lol


    I agree. Its within his prerogative to request an agency update a study.

    The proposed rule changes will have a public response period and could be invalidated by court action prior to effect barring the passage of actual legislation.

    Redirection of grant money is a token effort and the issue has already been litigated. It was unclear if this is funding already appropriated by congress for existing programs or if this is something new that will require additional legislation.

    Nomination of an agency head, again his prerogative. They will still need to be approved by congress.

    Besides the rhetoric and promises of a future legislative agenda, it does not seem like there is anything of real substance.
     

    TurboTrout

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    876
    672
    East Coast
    I mean, you'd have to be pretty naive that the loophole of using a brace to get around NFA laws wouldn't be patched up once the things became popular enough. We all knew this was coming.

    Now that braces will become useless since you have to SBR anyways, I wonder what will happen to the brace companies...

    But I'm getting ahead of myself. Nothing concrete has been written and signed yet. This may just be another setup to spur more gun sales to exacerbate an already strained supply chain.

    Loopholes?

    Only “loophole” I see is the NFA itself.

    It’s a illegal loophole to my fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and further reaffirmed in the federalist papers.

    And I fully support closing the loophole.
     

    BytorJr

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 28, 2018
    2,155
    2,097
    Biden said, stabilizing braces added to pistols makes them more accurate which makes them more lethal.

    So, a less accurate firearm is less lethal?
    In PJ's world it turns a 9mm into an A-10 30mm Gatling gun. Has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Sandhog308

    Shooter McGavin

    NTRP TEAM MEMBER #33
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 22, 2009
    1,218
    1,750
    Some where in the US
    Aren't regulations a subset of laws?
    A regulation is what is use to actually implement the law. It doesn't have to go through the bill process like a law. So, the law suit would be over an unconstitutional regulation. That regulation could be changed again to implement the law to make it constitutional.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Srikaleak

    Max

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • It’s pretty rich to call a brace a “loophole”. Going right up to a legal line, is legal as long as you don’t cross it.

    Like hunting on the edge of a private properly line. Drop an animal two feet on to public land, your legal. ( assuming you were following other applicable laws such as distance from houses and such ) No gray area about it. The atf went so far as to tell people they braces were legal. ( like they did bumpstocks)

    Intent was a huge part of this. Go around like a dumbass, posting on the Internet that you are building an sbr but using the “brace loophole” to avoid a stamp and well you have made the ATF’s case for them. The amount of times I have seen these types of posts is mind boggling.

    We gun owners need to stop talking like we are ATF agents or anti 2Aers. If it is legal it’s not a “loophole”. Reminds me of fudds who don’t think folks should be able to hunt legally with suppressors. “Not fair to the animal” ......judas priest. A clean kill without touching off “Thor’s hammer” and traumatizing the whole valley, seems pretty fair to me.
     

    Srikaleak

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    May 11, 2018
    969
    569
    But the original intent for braces were to allow people to use AR pistols with one hand. Braces were also conveniently able to be shouldered. The ATF went back and forth on whether you should shoulder them and now Biden is saying absolutely not, regardless of the backlash that the ATF once faced. He's got the power to enact such a thing as Chief. So yes, it was a loophole.

    NFA should be repealed but as it stands, braces were a loophole around SBR laws based on the definitions on how they separate pistols and rifles.

    1617915853809.png
     

    TurboTrout

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    876
    672
    East Coast
    But the original intent for braces were to allow people to use AR pistols with one hand. Braces were also conveniently able to be shouldered. The ATF went back and forth on whether you should shoulder them and now Biden is saying absolutely not, regardless of the backlash that the ATF once faced. He's got the power to enact such a thing as Chief. So yes, it was a loophole.

    NFA should be repealed but as it stands, braces were a loophole around SBR laws based on the definitions on how they separate pistols and rifles.

    So though I have no dog in this fight as I don’t have anything that a brace would make sense on or that is a SBR.

    So if you’re going to be a insta-badguy for having a brace, like federal criminal, if this passes and you’re now a criminal anyways, why shouldn’t all the folks with braces just put a legit stock on and drill a third hole?

    To me braces show compliant people, I mean you could just as easily put a stock on, but to honor their senseless illogical and unconstitutional laws you bolt this odd uncomfortable strappy thing onto your gun, I mean if they are targeting people who’s rifles scream “I will comply” well that’s not good.

    Meanwhile no one gives two shits about all the black on black violence and will let violent offenders go no bail needed, turn a blind eye to BLM burning down businesses, and won’t even mention the epidemic of democratic inner city black on Asian violence.

    criminalize your neighbors and working class, normalize the thugs and real victimizers.

    And of course the presidents son commits federal gun crimes...and gets a book deal.

    tenor.gif
     
    Last edited:

    Srikaleak

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    May 11, 2018
    969
    569
    So though I have no dog in this fight as I don’t have anything that a brace would make sense on or that is a SBR.

    So if you’re going to be a insta-badguy for having a brace, like federal criminal, if this passes and you’re a criminal anyways, why not just put a legit stock on and drill a third hole? If he already made you a felon and all
    Eventually they'll make us all criminals, so do whatever you want. Just don't get caught.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 10ring'r

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    5,055
    11,307
    But the original intent for braces were to allow people to use AR pistols with one hand. Braces were also conveniently able to be shouldered. The ATF went back and forth on whether you should shoulder them and now Biden is saying absolutely not, regardless of the backlash that the ATF once faced. He's got the power to enact such a thing as Chief. So yes, it was a loophole.

    NFA should be repealed but as it stands, braces were a loophole around SBR laws based on the definitions on how they separate pistols and rifles.

    View attachment 7600478
    one could argue using a "tax" to enact gun bans is also a "loophole".........so whos really the one in the wrong here?
     

    Srikaleak

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    May 11, 2018
    969
    569
    one could argue using a "tax" to enact gun bans is also a "loophole".........so whos really the one in the wrong here?
    Absolutely right, poll taxes are illegal, why are stamp taxes allowed?
     

    CcoFirst

    SLB
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 27, 2019
    125
    119
    53
    Biloxi
    He is politicking like a Senator and not a President. As a Senator he can say he "...tried, but the opposition did not allow us". This strategy anticipates the subsequent lawsuits that negate the EOs.

    The silliness of all this overshadows the inadequacy of the current administration to command the Executive office of the United States of America. You are seeing, now, what is a genuine feckless president and vice-president.
    Spot on
     

    TurboTrout

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    876
    672
    East Coast
    Eventually they'll make us all criminals, so do whatever you want. Just don't get caught.

    One of the reasons I’ve gone from the police need better training but are generally great folks, to they need reform, to now fully support defunding the police.

    I think everyone should like everyone, but when I get the vibe I’m being designated as a enemy, well shit, hard for me to still support you
     

    DocRDS

    Knows Nothing
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 21, 2012
    540
    835
    Texas
    One of the reasons I’ve gone from the police need better training but are generally great folks, to they need reform, to now fully support defunding the police.

    I think everyone should like everyone, but when I get the vibe I’m being designated as a enemy, well shit, hard for me to still support you
    Plus some of us are competitive jerks (like me) so if you designate me the enemy or domestic terrorist, I'ma shoot for worlds most dangerous enemy or worlds best domestic terrorist.

    Momma didn't raise no chump aiming for second place....
     

    Flyingbullseye

    Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Jul 24, 2010
    2,037
    3,744
    43
    Michigan
    Biden said: "But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute ... From the very beginning, you couldn't own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren't allowed to have weapons. So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we're recommending are contrary to the Constitution."

    Either Biden's speech writers are retarded or they trolled him pro level.

    Who exactly were the ones not allowed to own weapons?
    Answer: slaves.

    Why not?
    Answer: They'd rise up and fight for their freedom.

    Pretty sure that's a pro 2A argument right there.

    And we could own anything we wanted. Many war ships were privately owned as were artillery.
     

    nso123

    High Speed Steel Stinger
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 20, 2010
    741
    258
    Tennessee
    Except that doesn't happen and shops are pretty much set up all over the country to sell weed for recreational use.

    It's no different than nfa enforcement.

    Neither the atf or dea have any real enforcement ability on a individual basis.

    Shit bidens last batch of gun controlled fail to be Ble to prevent his crackhead, dishonorable discharged son from buying a gun legally

    They are imbeciles
    You are 100% wrong on this. Shops are set up exactly as I described. I worked undercover for years, so I know a little bit about this. Don’t believe me, go buy up several thousand bucks of hydroponic equipment and do a little counter surveillance. The DEA partners with locals because the locals are better able to get warrants and do other enforcement activities without the cumbersome federal process. The case, if large enough, is later adopted by the feds.
     

    Longshot231

    Old Salt
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Mar 8, 2018
    4,052
    15,597
    Biden said: "But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute ... From the very beginning, you couldn't own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren't allowed to have weapons. So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we're recommending are contrary to the Constitution."

    Either Biden's speech writers are retarded or they trolled him pro level.

    Who exactly were the ones not allowed to own weapons?
    Answer: slaves.

    Why not?
    Answer: They'd rise up and fight for their freedom.

    Pretty sure that's a pro 2A argument right there.

    And we could own anything we wanted. Many war ships were privately owned as were many artillery pieces.

    From the Dred Scott decision of 1856:

    "For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

    "
    Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding."


    Translation: "We can't free the n------. That would mean they could carry guns! We ain't gonna let that happen!"

    Full text of the decision here:


     

    Smitty192

    Stand-up Philosopher
    Supporter
    PX Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 23, 2017
    561
    124
    Deep East Texas
    I welcome his study on with whom /where gun crimes are occurring, as well as trafficking.

    I don’t think the left is going to like the findings, kinda like obamas CDC study on gun crimes, yeah that went under the rug really quick lol

    Assuming there will be an once of truly factual data. Whatever the findings...it will all be bullshit.