Senate Is at stake in Georgia runoff

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tennessee Gentleman said:
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
I know he's a politician but I think it unwise not to take him at his word.



The republicans controlled BOTH houses during all but two years of Obama's tenure. They stopped all efforts at gun control. If the Senate goes D then what I have shown you above WILL be proposed and likely pass. That is why the Georgia race is existential.
Click to expand...
During the two years Obama had a Democratic congress, Harry Reid was Senate Majority leader. He was in the Senate in 1994 when the Democrats lost 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate as a reaction to the Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban and didn't want to risk a repeat. So he refused Omaba's request for a new ban.

It's possible that Biden won't act on his promise for draconian gun laws, but that's a mighty slender reed to gamble our freedom on.
 
Harry Reid is long gone and (named omitted) is hard over on gun control. Plus the first two years Obama spent all his political capital on Obamacare. Further, the left wing of the Dems was not as strong or vocal.

Like I said, I know Biden is a pol but I tend to take him at his word.
 
IMHO is is very unlikely that Joe Biden will get any gun bans through congress even if the democrats pick up the 2 seats in Georgia. Consider that in 2013 the proposed AWB shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting was soundly defeated with 15 democrat senators voting no and that AWB included grandfather of already owned firearms with no registration requirement. Senators are more independent than house members as there are only 100 of them, their term lasts 6 years, and it now costs tens of millions of dollars to defend a senate seat. Memories are still fresh with them with what happened to many who voted for the 1994 AWB losing their next re election bid and that there are a whole lot more firearm owners these days including the ever popular AR-15 style rifles where estimates run around 20 million being owned by law abiding gun owners which certainly does not qualify them as being both "dangerous and unusual" per the Heller decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2013

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, failed on a vote of 40 in favor to 60 in opposition. It was supported by Democrat Reid and Republican Senator Mark Kirk, but 15 Democrats, one independent, and all the Republicans except Kirk voted against the ban.
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind that now with ACB on SCOTUS, that may actually make democrats more reluctant to try and pass anther AWB and such a ban would almost surely go to SCOTUS after a court ordering a stay on the law in the mean time. If SCOTUS strikes down an AWB that could also have far reaching consequences invalidating most gun ban laws in blue/purple states.

I expect that priorities for gun control will probably include federal red flag law and UBC but not gun bans.

Please continue to financially support your favorite Second Amendment Rights organizations.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind it won't take major gun bans to make exercising our Constitutional freedom more difficult. Things like restrictions on internet sells or increased taxes/fees for things like trauma rooms, mental health care, suicide prevention, criminal justice reform, gun violence related research etc. All funded by new fees on firearms, ammo and accessories. This would pretty much fly under the radar of the casual observer, but make things much more onerous for those trying to exercise their right.
 
Keep in mind it won't take major gun bans to make exercising our Constitutional freedom more difficult. Things like restrictions on internet sells or increased taxes/fees for things like trauma rooms, mental health care, suicide prevention, criminal justice reform, gun violence related research etc. All funded by new fees on firearms, ammo and accessories. This would pretty much fly under the radar of the casual observer, but make things much more onerous for those trying to exercise their right.
Click to expand...

When reading through the newer posts in the thread this is exactly what I was thinking. I don’t think we see an AWB or anything that big with a 50/50 split. The party that typically campaigns on gun control did not see the sweeping wave that they thought they would get. Essentially they won the presidency by a slim margin, lost seats in the House, and it’s looking like they maybe pick up 1 or 2 in the senate. I believe the runoff will be much more like an off-year election where the opposition party to the presidency fares much better. And if history is an indicator, winning a majority in the HOR and expanding control in the senate will be on the table in 2022... depending on how the joe Biden presidency looks. There has been good bit of reporting on how many democrat house members felt like this election was disappointment to them. “Dumpster fire” was used as a descriptor by one democrat representative. There is no sweeping mandate attached to this election results, and that is widely known.

At the same time, banning internet sales of parts, and ammo, may be seen as “reasonable” by more people as it doesn’t ban any particular item... just makes them harder to get for some. Mucking around with internet sales of parts and ammo would be a huge hit to a lot of people once you think about it, it I could see that being an easier political sale to the general public than a AWB. And yes an excise tax would also hurt pretty bad, because I would wager if they go that route then it won’t be a petty sum.
 
Last edited:
We have only been residents of Florida for 16 years, 17 in Jan. Citizens now. As a retired Firearms Instructor, I know lots of Law Enforcement Officers!
To a man (or woman) they are not going to knock on doors to seize legally purchased firearms, no way.
Think about it? You, a Cop! Knock on a door in uniform. Who is on the other side of the door? A person who has been drinking maybe? With a loaded 30 round capacity rifle. Or at an upper window, possibly!
I am not calling Cops cowards, but they are not stupid either.
 
In 1994 "assault weapons" were a very, very, very small percentage of all gun sales which made it easy to ban them. The 1994 AWB tried to define an Assault Weapon, but did so in such a way that it actually banned nothing. All manufacturers had to do was make minor cosmetic changes and continue selling the same guns.

Sales of AR-15's skyrocketed during the ban, or rather because of it. Of course they couldn't sell one with a flash hider or bayonet lug. Other than those minor changes nothing happened until the ban expired in 2004.

The AR rifle in 2020 is the most common rifle in America. Since 1994 about twice as many AR's have been sold in this country than 30-30's since 1894. No one is going to try to ban something that common. Even Joe Biden recognizes the situation.

I do expect to see a push for more regulations on WHO can legally own weapons.
 
I see what many are saying here that with a 50-50 split the Senate won't do anything radical. I would have agreed in 2013 but not now. The Dems want power and they are voting more like a bloc than before. I hope you are right but I fear it if the Dems get control of the Senate.
 
jmr40

In 1994 "assault weapons" were a very, very, very small percentage of all gun sales which made it easy to ban them. The 1994 AWB tried to define an Assault Weapon but did so in such a way that it actually banned nothing. All manufacturers had to do was make minor cosmetic changes and continue selling the same guns.
Sales of AR-15's skyrocketed during the ban, or rather because of it. Of course, they couldn't sell one with a flash hider or bayonet lug. Other than those minor changes nothing happened until the ban expired in 2004.

The AR rifle in 2020 is the most common rifle in America. Since 1994 about twice as many AR's have been sold in this country than '30-'30s since 1894. No one is going to try to ban something that common. Even Joe Biden recognizes the situation.

I do expect to see a push for more regulations on WHO can legally own weapons.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill


The easest thing to ban, I think, will be magazines. 10 round maximum will be the first step. But the ban (That is not a ban?) you can not find ammunition, right now!
 
Last edited:
Misses are very common in a home defense situation, especially when fired by a scared homeowner in the dark against a moving target. Even NY police officers miss three out of four shots on average in a fire fight. So if it could take four shots per hit, and two hits to stop the threat, that's possibly eight shots for each invader. Since home invasions often involve multiple bad guys, limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds would seriously inhibits our ability to protect our homes and families in a worse case scenario. Do you think this would get past SCOTUS?
 
"To a man (or woman) they are not going to knock on doors to seize legally purchased firearms, no way.
Think about it? You, a Cop! Knock on a door in uniform. Who is on the other side of the door? A person who has been drinking maybe? With a loaded 30 round capacity rifle. Or at an upper window, possibly! 
I am not calling Cops cowards, but they are not stupid either."(Brit).

You are correct Sir, Cops are not stupid. They won't knock on doors when widespread confiscation begins, not regular officers anyhow. They will set up 1-800 anonymous tip lines, possibly with a cash reward. Then a specially trained SWAT type unit, dressed in all black, will show up with overwhelming force in the wee hours with a search warrant. It will happen very fast and unexpectedly. It will be terrifying and dangerous to say the least.

It is what Dictatorships do. It is already occurring in certain large Democratic governed city's. If you refuse to turn in your registered firearms (or guns they find out about via 3rd party ), within a certain time frame, they WILL come and take them by force. That's how it works. In DC, unmarked cars carrying undercover police, quickly stop, jump out and frisk anyone suspected of carrying a gun. A cell phone in your pocket can result in being aggressively patted down & searched... just for walking down the street. So much for Constitutional rights!!! https://www.npr.org/2018/10/24/6599...llegal-guns-leaves-residents-feeling-targeted

It's all part of the liberal / globalist agenda. Same as 1930's Hitler's Germany, they will claim registration and the subsequent confiscation of sporting arms are in the interest of "Public Safety". :eek: Imagine if the Federal government decided to start passing more restrictions / registration / confiscations, bans, etc. and implemented similar jack booted policies in all 50 states! Not pretty. It CAN happen... many coming into power want to make it happen.
This is why this Georgia race is SO important. With Biden/Harris and possibly Beto in some appointed position, we need Senators who believe in the Constitution, not Socialists who scream and vow that they are going to take our guns away.
 
Last edited:
Gun Control---It's back?

Well, after “gun control” was “shelved” during the election, you know, so as not to energize the “deplorables”, now that the election is over and things are what they are, guess what's back in the news? Former President Barrack Obama bringing up Sandy Hook and the governments “failure to do anything”.

I put “failure to do anything” in quotes because OF COURSE preserving our rights is seen as NOTHING to the anti-gun folk.

What’s that you say? Maybe the U.S. Senate elections coming up in Georgia on January 5, 2021 might be important? Gosh, maybe.

The November 13, 2020 article I was talking about.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...y-of-his-presidency/ar-BB1aZD4v?ocid=msedgdhp
 
Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them. In my opinion the last 4 years have been terrible for our country. For me 2A rights are just one issue. I also want healthcare, decent economy for working class people and an environment that my grandkids will get to enjoy (hopefully). There is more at stake right now than just gun rights.
 
makarov said:
Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them. In my opinion the last 4 years have been terrible for our country. For me 2A rights are just one issue. I also want healthcare, decent economy for working class people and an environment that my grandkids will get to enjoy (hopefully). There is more at stake right now than just gun rights.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you, if and only if the runoffs in Georgia lead to Republican controlled Senate. Here is hoping you don’t have to start worrying about your gun rights, because if the senate is an equal split and Kamala gets to vote the tie breaker, it will be up to the Supreme Court to preserve your 2nd amendment rights. And if the second amendment falls, the rest of the Bill of Rights will all be at risk, not to mention the possible packing of the Supreme Court so that only bullets can stop a tyranny of the left.
 
"Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them". (Makarov)

Perhaps you SHOULD be worried given their history, past statements and their Globalist Agenda. :rolleyes:
 
Harris is considered one of the most liberal senators.

Bidens website has a entire list of gun control measures. On HIS OWN website he will make 30 rd mags a NFA item. He also will ban on line ammo and gun sales.

These two are bad for the USA and constitution.
 
I started this thread,as the Mod said,on thin ice.

Its going off track.

The 2A and gun laws are a concern to most all of us.

In our current political environment,majority control of the Senate may therefore be a concern for many of us.

I presented the issue as a "heads up". Simply to spread awareness.

I'm sure big money will be involved,and grass roots financial support is one way to participate in politics.

Now here is a very key point I hope you all will pay attention to,and adhere to.

I did not even mention the names of the candidates. I'm not campaigning for either side here.

The TFL member who posted the contact info to contribute posted contact info for both parties. It was natman,post #8. Thank you and good job,natman!! Thats the way to do it.

We can share true information in a non-partisan way.

By now,I think undecided fence sitters are a rare commodity. Most everyone has made up their mind what their position is and who they will support.

Most likely,rather passionately. No one is going to change their mind about who or what to support by way of any argument in this thread.

While I'm sure you have your position,whatever it may be,Great! Good for you! This is not a campaign rally or a protest/counter protest. You won't convince anyone,there is no purpose in virtue signallng,regardless of your position.

The point is to be aware there is runoff election for control of the Senate early January. If you want to have some influence on that outcome,unless you are a Georgia registered voter,the most powerful thing you can do is send financial support to whichever party you support in this issue.

Or just cry later.

If there is another venue where you can drum up support,That might help.

Please,no matter which side you support ,this is not the place to present your gun control stance or regard for a particular political figure.You have yours,I have mine,thats just fine.

It might be a place to offer awareness of the issue,and more important,avenues to contribute support.
 
Last edited:
makarov wrote:

Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Harris labeled one of the "Most Progressive Liberal Senator" out of all 100 of them?

A quick Google search shows hundreds upon hundreds of sites that say Harris is anti gun. Many of them creditable sites.

Without the Second Amendment, the others are not enforceable.
 
Last edited:
Is the control of the Senate worth $7 Billion?
Absolutely, that’s a small price to pay for Legislative / Executive branch trifecta considering Trillions are at stake.

Kelly Lofler has been called an “id***” by other republicans (their words Mods not mine) and running against an articulate democrat, so write that race off as she didn’t get 1/3 of the vote where collectively the democrats received just over 50%.
So the focus is on the most capable Senator Perdue.
With 7.23M voters in Georgia, I expect the Purdue race will top vote buying (yes *buying*) at more than $1,000 per winning vote.

But there is some sunshine: Democratic trifectas in the past were not able to pass ubernasty gun measures, and with several centric democrat legislators in conservative states, drastic isn’t going to happen.

1 more datapoint: typically 1 legislator per year is replaced by their governor when no longer able to serve, so don’t discount health, ethics or indictments as a rebalancing measure.
 
The ice was thin to begin with and the last page of posts is cracking it badly. The OP is to be commended for trying and some posters are playing under the rules, but the rest of you are going to get this shut down in short order if it continues.

Let's be clear, the acceptable topic is the GA runoff election. PERIOD.

Discussion of NATIONAL party politics and the people involved in them is OFF TOPIC.

If we can stick to the topic we can go on. If not, we're done here.
Last chance, folks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top