Democrats Propose Sweeping Anti-Gun Bill That Would Create National Registry

The proposal is a dead-end, but will motivate pro-gun voters.

We’ve noted before that both parties seem to be making calculated moves in an attempt to become less popular with voters in advance of the midterm elections. Now two Democrats, who were apparently worried that some gun owners might not vote Republican, have proposed a national gun registry.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act in the House and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) introduced a companion bill in the Senate. The Washington Examiner reports that the bill would make it illegal to own an unlicensed gun and would require a firearms license and federal background checks for all sales and transfers of guns. The bill would also require the attorney general to create a federal system to record gun purchases.

The bill is one of several gun control proposals named for Chicago honor student, Blair Holt, who was murdered in 2008. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country as well as one of the highest crime rates.

Rush’s office claims that the gun registry would protect the public from “unreasonable risk of injury and death” from private gun sales. Second Amendment advocates would also point out that a gun registry would make gun confiscation easier in the event of a ban. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Cal.) proposed such a ban just last month.

Gun owners have nothing to fear from the Democratic proposals. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, most gun control bills are dead on arrival. An exception would be the bump stock ban being pushed by President Trump and many Democrats.

Even a large number of Democrats from conservative-leaning states would oppose strict new gun laws. It’s fitting that the new anti-gun proposals originate with members of Congress from California and Illinois, two of the states most out of touch with the rest of the country with respect to gun rights.

In spite of the recent school shootings, guns registered a distant third on a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll behind health care and jobs/economy. Only 13 percent of voters considered guns the most important issue. There was no breakdown between the pro- and anti-gun factions in the poll.

The largest impact of the Democrat bill will be to mobilize gun owners to resist the attempt to erode gun rights. Democratic proposals that confirm the worst fears of gun owners will drive Second Amendment voters to the polls where defending Donald Trump might not.

No. 1-11

Just because a propaganda website quotes it, doesn't make it true. Here's an excerpt from a book written by an actual scholar who has studied this extensively and is also employed by a Christian University.

They Never Said It : A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions By Paul F. Boller Jr. Emeritus Professor of History Texas Christian University, Oklahoma John George Jr. Professor of Political Science and Sociology Central State University,%20who%20died%20in%201924,%20had%20anything%20to%20say%20of%20use%20for%20opponents%20of%20firearms-registration%20in%20the%20United%20States%20in%20the%20late%2020th&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDgseSsNnKAhVV92MKHUFpAZQQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=That%20Lenin%2C%20who%20died%20in%201924%2C%20had%20anything%20to%20say%20of%20use%20for%20opponents%20of%20firearms-registration%20in%20the%20United%20States%20in%20the%20late%2020th&f=false


A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


@RFlynn - Many people are delusional, that doesn't mean we should prep for their delusions. In reality, no matter how anonymous gun ownership was, we'd have no shot against defending ourselves against the US Military. To pretend otherwise is just fantasy. More than likely, if it actually came to the military going rogue, they'd just nuke us with neutron bombs. Everything infrastructure wise remains, everything living that could pull a trigger is dead. No reason to put any actual rogue troops at risk. Minimizing troop casualties would be paramount because those are all the friendlies they'd likely have. In a scenario not involving nukes, if the military went rogue and turned on us, our allies would likely turn on the military. Your equation completely ignores that likelyhood. It's no good to the rest of the planet to have a rogue US Military, it would likely be met with fierce resistance. Your equation also assumes 100% of the military would go rogue and that none of the troops would fight back against a rogue element - again, this it isn't happening that way and at least enough troops would remain loyal and would not let the rogue element proceed unchallenged.

You bring up soldiers in Iraq - why would a database have helped the US one bit? We're talking about civilians. We knew where soldiers had their weapons - they had their weapons in the field. Aside from that, the argument is bullshit since simply knowing where almost 400 million guns are in the US doesn't address the logistical issue of literally going to almost every home in the united states to collect those weapons. That isn't happening in a hour, or a day, or even a month. It would likely take every day in a year or more assuming everyone behaved peacefully and willingly gave up their weapons(they would absolutely not). As I've said before, minimizing troop casualties is paramount in this scenario. House to house raids would put all of those troops at risk. Not a good strategy. The only way a rogue military lives to tell their tale of victory would absolutely, positively be nuclear based attacks against the population both inside the US and probably outside against our allies and maybe even our enemies(who might take the opportunity to join in the fun).