HeloDude

Dude, I love you, but I’m more likely to believe an attorney with GOA than you on this one. Also, this is from the firearmblog: The Department has determined that, as a matter of its own enforcement discretion, it will not, as the NPRM suggested as an option, require individuals and FFLs without an SOT that timely register their affected weapons with a “stabilizing brace,” which are in their possession as of the date this rule is published, to pay the $200 making tax usually due upon submission of such an application to register. The whole point is that you’re going to be telling the ATF you are already in possession of the “SBR” (ie pistol w/brace) to get the free stamp/registration. I think the problem is you’re going off of your prior knowledge before this new ruling/regulation…don’t you think one or more items in this process might be changing given the massive new change in the rule? https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2023/01/13/firearms-stabilizing-braces/

The video I posted, that you quickly dismissed, was discussing how if someone (you or anyone else) attempts to register their current pistol w/ brace under the ATF’s current plan, that person is telling the ATF they have an assembled pistol w/ brace, ie an unregistered SBR according to the ATF. If you’re wanting to take advantage of registering a future SBR build, then go for it. But that’s not what the video was discussing.

According to the ATF, if you have a pistol with a brace you currently have an unregistered SBR. This was all in the video I shared.

I thought the left said that we don’t have voting rights and hence why need to pass the Voting Rights bill from the last Congress 🤷‍♂️

For those who are thinking the ATF is giving you a good deal by allowing you to register your (what was legal/not considered an SBR last week) pistol with a brace without paying the $200 stamp…I strongly suggest you watch this new video.

The Dems screwed themselves on this one. If they find Trump at fault and not Biden, then it only further supports the argument from the right about the DOJ not being fair, etc. If they find both at fault, then this will hurt the Dems and their argument that Biden was the adult in the room/returning non-corruption back to the WH. And if none of them are found at fault, then the left will be upset that Trump once again is found not be the bad man the left/media has made him out to be. But, is anyone really that surprised?

But Jan 6th is different…or something.

At least I have one thing in common with Hunter Biden lol

Can you just imagine what will happen if the different special counsels find fault with one and not the other?

With private sales still being legal at the federal level, the Feds might know who originally bought the firearm from the manufacturer/dealer, but have no way of knowing if you sold you it to someone else (and so on and so forth), as no records are required to be made/maintained. This is what is preventing a national registry of firearms not on the NFA list…and it’s why progressives want “100% background checks” (to essentially make a registry). ETA: Basically what M2 had already said lol

So it was legal for all these years (it’s already gone and forth in the past) and it’s suddenly not legal, according to a 3-letter bureaucracy, even though there hasn’t been a new law passed to make it not legal. This will also be overturned, eventually. In the meantime, just don’t be stupid (ie tell people online that you have it, share pics/videos, etc).

So should anything negative happen to Biden?

Yeah…CNN is reporting it and is definitely not trying to spin this as Biden is good and Trump is bad.

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize. Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded. So why not do much more across the globe? As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly? I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country. And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it.

So why aren’t we spending hundreds of billions (or even trillions) more to help countries in need? If the national debt is irrelevant when it comes to spending to help out countries, shouldn’t we be doing quite a bit more?

Should there ever be any limitations/concerns on federal spending, wrt to the national debt, to help a country in need?

I totally agree man…so what exactly happens to Biden?

If they’re only arguing about Ukraine spending, then you’re right, they’re full of shit. If they’re arguing that spending is a problem across the board then they’re not full of shit, and Ukraine spending is only adding to the problem. As for politicians not caring about future problems due to what they’re doing today—call me shocked. Funny, people worry more about “climate change” than an increasing massive debt…I’m sure one will cause us more problems in the next 10-20 years than the other.

You can call it BS…but we didn’t end up here by accident. It all adds up. And I’m for tackling all of it—everything should be heavily scrutinized. Take a look at this from 2013…this way of thinking is why nothing will get dealt with until it’s way too late. And the GOP is just as at fault. "The cupboard is bare. There's no more cuts to make. It's really important that people understand that," Pelosi said in an interview on CNN. "We cannot have cuts just for the sake of cuts." https://reason.com/2014/05/25/nothing-left-to-cut/

It would literally not add that much more to the debt. And I’m all about cutting the defense budget as well. The same thought that “these cuts wouldn’t amount to much” is the same thought that brings “let’s fund X…it’s not that much in grand scheme of things”. This is how you get $31 Trillion in debt…and much worse when you look at what SS and Medicare will add over the years.

This is the debt clock…not sure what your questions are?

I’m not a Republican, but if you’re asking why some people would “whine” about spending (defense or otherwise)…oh I don’t know… https://www.usdebtclock.org

Isn’t in the US where the left gets really upset for police shooting unarmed people?

Nah not triggered, just initially disappointed, and it wasn't a threat—wonder why you would suggest that it was? As for “just quoting the Constitution”…if you say so. Funny, it’s the same partial quote that those who want to erode gun rights use. I guess I assumed you were doing the same, my honest apology. As far as the high standard people should have when owning, carrying, using firearms…totally agree. I expect that everyone should have a high standard in everything they do in life. But if Karen wants to have a loaded pistol in her purse with “one in chamber” (I don’t know why anyone would carry a firearm for self defense without one in the chamber?), then that’s her right. If she uses her firearm inappropriately/to cause problems, then she can answer for it. But until then, carrying a firearm is still her right and it shouldn’t never be reduced or taken away. But back to Kinzinger…he’s a politician. He said what he had to say to get elected and now he’ll say what he has to say to stay relevant. Justin Amash can’t stand Trump either (he voted to impeach him the first time), but I believe he’s more so of an honest type politician (compared to most) as he still stands for what he has stood for in the past.