Total CRAP!!! Sadly far too many in this country believe this would work.
Their manifesto regurgitates every item that has been on the gun control wish list for the last 50+ years. It is an example of throw everything up against the wall and hope something sticks. The problem being if even one sticks it will encourage them to repeat their demands add infinitum. Lets ban evil black rifles to save lives is one example. Never mind that the Clinton ban that lasted 10 years had no effect on their perceived problem. They disguise their radical agenda with emotional blather And half truths that conceal their ultimate objective of a total gun ban. Bob
It is worse than just see what sticks, Bobjudy.
Historically the NRA and the compliant gun owners it represents have told us that a no compromise approach will result in the elimination of the 2nd Amendment. The left and their fellow travelers in the NRA know that each compromise only lines the path for the next compromise, the next, and then the next.
The approach has historically been to let existing owners keep their stuff, but deny it to future generations. We see this by FDR in 1934, Reagan in 1984, Clinton in 1993, etc. So now they throw 6 big items out for consideration. A no compromise approach will be to ignore them all. The historic approach by the gun rights community will be to give on one or two of them so that they will go away temporarily.
This is why bump-stocks mattered. To ban them, Trump had to specifically ignore the wording of the 1934 NFA. Changing the wording of a law absent legislative action is not Constitutional, but people here ignored it because they were still able to keep what they wanted.
We are told to believe that governance is simply a series of comprises, and that is just how it is. We government compromises away the rights of its citizens, however, a simple reading of the Declaration of Independence should tell us that said government has given up its legitimacy.
There is no question that the Biden/Harris agenda is one that specifically targets the sacred rights of a significant minority of the population. The simple fact that cowards within that population will comply with the limitation of these rights does not make these limitations are acceptable from either a Constitutional or Natural Rights perspective.
Re-writing the Constitution by legislative action or by executive action de-legitimizes government, and as such, these re-writes can and should be ignored by the population, ignored by Law Enforcement, and ignored by the courts.
There are GOP members in the Senate who have voting records that support some of these 6 items. In the name of compromise and progress, some may just squeak through. This is nothing less than the over-throw of the Constitution by a sitting government. Dissolving that government may become necessary. It would be nice if there was a Constitutional means to do this, however, the example is not found in the Constitution, rather it is in a document created some 13 years earlier.
You did a much better, ie longer, explanation of my point of one of their ideas sticking opens the door for more.
You forgot to mention LBJ and the 68 gun control act. This gave modern impetus to the gun control movement.
I pretty much agree to your well thought out comments on the subject but if you think that your last two sentences will ever happen, I think you are mistaken. Bob
It was sickening to read that nonsense on top of nonsense.
"You must be licensed to drive a car...you should also be licensed to own a gun!"
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROMISE US, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND DRIVE CARS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
In any discussion with the anti's their ultimate argument is, "Well, current laws aren't working."
We tried to tell you they would not work. HOW ABOUT WE REPEAL THEM?