Nancy Pelosi, Surrounded By Armed Security, Promises Swift Action On Restricting Gun Rights Of Lawful Citizens

What makes her think any of this will pass the Senate, or even be signed by President Trump?

‘Boldly and Decisively’: Pelosi Promises Swift Action on ‘Commonsense’ Gun Control

Democrats will act “boldly” to bring “commonsense” gun control reforms to the table, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

“The new Democratic majority will act boldly and decisively to pass commonsense, life-saving background checks that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” Pelosi said, Politico reported Monday.

With Pelosi’s support, Democrats coalesced to create a gun reform proposal that would require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales, Politico reported.

They have this in California. Yet, they still have shootings, lots of them, in uber-Stateist California. This type of bill won’t stop anything. Virtually no shooting occur due to a private transfer with no background check. As Splinter notes

That’s well and good for the House, but given the newly bolstered Republican majority in the Senate, it’s safe to assume that any gun control legislation will be effectively dead on arrival once it reaches the upper chamber, to say nothing of the Trump White House.

Of course, this is just the beginning, and, interestingly, nothing that the Democrats have trotted out or even just thrown against the wall goes after criminals who use gun illegally. Nor criminals who illegally possess guns. Nor criminals. Everything is aimed at law abiding citizens. I’m looking forward to the Dems over-reaching.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi, Surrounded By Armed Security, Promises Swift Action On Restricting Gun Rights Of Lawful Citizens”

  1. alanstorm says:

    Democrats will act “boldly” to bring “commonsense” gun control reforms to the table,

    That would be novel, and an interesting contrast to the usual idiocy they bring to the table.

    • Professor Hale says:

      Common sense would include repealing the NFA. It is a stupidly written law that accomplishes none of it’s stated goals. Without the NFA, the issue of bump stocks becomes moot.

  2. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Kinda like “commonsense” healthcare, right?
    We’ve been down this road before.
    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  3. Hoss says:

    Incrementalism.

    I’ll be inclined to go along with some “commonsense” gun legislation when the democrat party agrees to some “commonsense” voting laws and immigration law. So, never.

  4. Kye says:

    Actual “common sense” gun laws should be designed to prohibit as many criminals, mental patients and illegal aliens as possible from owning guns. These laws already exist. Anything more than that is specifically designed to inhibit lawful gun owners and American citizens. The capacity of a magazine, a bump stock and a suppressor have no effect on criminals having already illegal guns but do have meaning to law abiding citizens who should have no problem owning such things.

    Any lawmakers proposing or voting for more gun laws should have their security detail immediately revoked. Unarmed tax payers have no responsibility to protect people who won’t protect the citizens.

  5. Jethro says:

    Democrats coalesced to create a gun reform proposal that would require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales

    You recently favored background checks for all gun sales.

    • formwiz says:

      Somehow, I’ll bet he didn’t.

      • Jethro says:

        You lose your bet.

        As I’ve written, I’m OK with expanding background checks to include all private purchases and transfers. I’m OK with requiring a new background check anytime a firearm is purchased within a month of the previous purchase, because things can change

        You’re welcome.

  6. Dana says:

    Any restriction on our Second Amendment rights is an incremental chipping away at the right. I am not supportive of “expanding background checks to include all private purchases and transfers,” because such imposes a difficult burden on people who have no resources or systems to make such checks.

    • Jethro says:

      What about Trump’s recent banning of “bump” stocks?

    • gitarcarver says:

      In the abstract, I am in favor of background checks – even for private sales. Most polls of gun owners show the same thing. Responsible gun owners don’t want to be providing weapons to felons, the mentally ill, etc.

      The issue is in the application. We have seen where the NICS has been critically flawed when law enforcement agencies haven’t supplied the necessary data. We have seen where the military has not supplied the necessary data.

      When the underlying system is broken, expanding that system is shear lunacy.

      The other concern is the data of the background check. By law that data is supposed to be wiped after a certain amount of time because failing to do so creates a de-facto gun registry. The FBI has testified that has not happened on several occasions which once again leads to fixing the system before expanding it.

      Dana brings up costs and personally, I think that is a non-starter. The average background check now costs $15-$20 which is the cost of a pizza.

      Until the federal government works to fix the system that is now in place, the need to expand any background check doesn’t make sense.

  7. Kye says:

    What about it? So now you’re a Trump supporter? BTW, as formwiz mentioned, it hasn’t passed the SC test yet. Changing the stock on a rifle does not magically convert it into a “machine gun”. Even you must know that.

  8. Jethro says:

    Changing the stock on a rifle does not magically convert it into a “machine gun”

    Who said it?

    bump-stock-type devices-meaning “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

    Answer: Trump’s DOJ in the Final Rule on bump stocks.

    So you and whiz think Trump designed the new rule to enable overturning the “machinegun rule”. Interesting. Crazy, but interesting.

    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13635046/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.0.pdf

  9. formwiz says:

    No, you cherry picked an item from Reddit.

    As for what I believe, most of the intelligent part of the Internet has believed it since the idea was first broached.

    I know that tRump’s document describes semi-auto rifles with “bump stocks” as machine guns. Take it up with tRump.

    You know? How do you know? Which one of your little voices told you?

    I’ll bet the DOJ has it out there someplace. Why didn’t you link that?

    Ask TEACH if he posted it. (He did).

    Then link it.

    PS I was circumcised so you need to come up with some thing not only wittier, but just a trifle more intelligent (if you can master that).

    Care to provide a link to an article?

  10. […] The Pirate’s Cove – Nancy Pelosi, Surrounded By Armed Security, Promises Swift Action On Restricting Gun Rights Of Lawfu… […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 7126 access attempts in the last 7 days.