“I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” Biden wrote to Congress.
How unifying is this?
Approximately one out of every three Americans own a firearm, nearly half the country lives in a household where firearms are present, and there are more firearms than people in the United States. Gun sales smashed all-time records last year amid the pandemic and violent riots that broke out in major U.S. cities, which are largely run by Democrats. Nearly five million Americans bought a firearm for the very first time last year.
And 95% of those firearms (including handguns) have standard capacity magazines which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and therefore would be banned if Biden succeeds.
Civil unrest has served as a prime driver of gun sales during the coronavirus pandemic, as Americans buy firearms for self-protection. Federal background checks for gun purchases surged 40% to a record 39.7 million in 2020, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, while gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger RGR +0.1% reported double-digit increases in sales.
There is seemingly little limit to what Biden wants to target when it comes to the Second Amendment, ranging from taxing gun owners, banning magazines “that can hold multiple bullets in them,” offering “no compromise” on the issue, and making other incoherent remarks like claiming that a “rational policy” on guns is making sure “you cannot have 20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon.”
While on the campaign trail, Biden said that far-left gun control activist Beto O’Rourke was “going to be the one who leads this effort” for the Biden administration. O’Rourke has called for confiscating firearms from Americans.
And what do the other 2 stated goals mean?
- “Requiring background checks on all gun sales” means that he would make my Grandfather a felon for buying me my first shotgun when I was 12.
It would be illegal to sell firearms between family or friends – even though those sales have never been a documented source of crime – because gun owners are self-regulating, in the sense that they will not sell to someone who they believe could misuse the firearm, because state laws make the seller responsible in such cases already.
But most importantly, it would mean the creation of a national gun registry – as that would be the only way to effect such a law – and no legislator denies this.
Many 2nd amendment advocates have long known that a national gun registry is the ultimate goal of such a plan, and that is the greatest danger, as such a registry could clearly be used to undermine the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” by making it easier for government to target gun owners.
That has been the reason that even individual state-run gun registries have been struck down in most states, with only a handful of states requiring registration of firearms with the government.
- “Eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers” is actually the scariest part.
What it actually means is allowing implementation of laws which would make any manufacturer of firearms liable for any misuse of their product.
This is scary stuff – such transfer of liability to a manufacturer has NEVER even been considered for any other product in this country.
- Is GM held liable if some crazy person drives a Chevy pickup into someone else?
- Is Cutco held liable if OJ uses one of their kitchen knives to stab someone?
- Is Skill held liable if a mobster uses one of their chainsaws to chop people up?
No,, that’s not how any of this works, nor should it.
But that’s what they want for gun manufacturers.
And the reason is clear – it is essentially a backdoor way of trying to bankrupt the gun industry or force them to drastically change the types of weapons they are willing to sell.