View Full Version : Toomey_ Manchin deal
Phillygunguy
04-10-13, 13:19
Asshole sold us out
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965
Did you think we would gain anything from this "deal", besides lost freedoms and a little more gov in your life.
Putting on my political/PR spin hat....
We could spin this in a positive way. "you have implemented back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Therefore, you have no additional justification for gun control (AWB) on the law abiding". A lot of this struggle is not about data, its PR and emotion. I don't like it, but think back to Jan. IF you had been told, all that is going to happen is background checks passing through the senate (no AWB, no mag limits), that would seem like a result that is not as bad as it could have been.
Not saying I agree with this. But I think if it passes, we should spin it the way I mentioned above.
D
Phillygunguy
04-10-13, 13:46
Putting on my political/PR spin hat....
We could spin this in a positive way. "you have implemented back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Therefore, you have no additional justification for gun control (AWB) on the law abiding". A lot of this struggle is not about data, its PR and emotion. I don't like it, but think back to Jan. IF you had been told, all that is going to happen is background checks passing through the senate (no AWB, no mag limits), that would seem like a result that is not as bad as it could have been.
Not saying I agree with this. But I think if it passes, we should spin it the way I mentioned above.
D
Not buying it. They have the federal gov. Up our asses even more so. The part I don't like is using your CCW license when you buy a firearm so now they can know how many guns and what kind you have. Basically backdoor registration
Just shot Toomey another email thanking him for selling out and promising to donate to his opponent in any primaries this up coming election cycle
Phillygunguy
04-10-13, 13:50
I posted my disgust on his FB page telling him congrats on being a one term senator
brickboy240
04-10-13, 13:52
Magpul...let this be a lesson to you.
I read that they were considering PA for their move at one time.
From the looks of it, PA is much like NY or CA....full of urban blue hells that dictate much of the state's body politic. This is the state that also gave us Arlon Specter and John Murtha.
...sad day.
-brickboy240
Phillygunguy
04-10-13, 13:54
I used to tell people I'm a Pennsylvanian first, from Philly second now I'm ashamed to be from both
DreadPirateMoyer
04-10-13, 14:00
Magpul...let this be a lesson to you.
I read that they were considering PA for their move at one time.
From the looks of it, PA is much like NY or CA....full of urban blue hells that dictate much of the state's body politic. This is the state that also gave us Arlon Specter and John Murtha.
...sad day.
-brickboy240
Nope. One of the most pro-gun states in the US, still is, and will continue to be. The Senate, House, and Governor are all Republicans. The only reason it swings blue in national elections is because PA is incredibly union-controlled, but most of those union guys are pro-gun as well.
And I doubt Magpul would ever come here. The gun laws are amazing. The business laws are not.
As for Toomey, no clue what happened there. Both he and Bob Casey had A/B+ NRA ratings respectively, showing the strong gun culture here in PA. Both turned on us, though. We won't forget that here in PA.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-10-13, 14:11
What is this about internet sales? All shipped stuff has to go to an FFL, do they mean that if I put my gun up for sale on my Colorado AR-15 board, I can't do a face-to-face and transfer it?
I've heard that it is ok to transfer to "Friends and neighbors", but does that mean only people we don't know online?
Considering how ignorant that people are about gun laws, I'd just keep passing laws that cover things already illegal. Is this what the 'internet' part of this law means?
I agree though that if 1/1/2013 you had predicted that this was all that would happen, people would have scoffed.
All this is going to be a mess until the SCOTUS finally and finely defines what restrictions are legal and illegal. If we keep on Dole-McCain-Romney our presidential picks, we will run out of votes on the SCOTUS.
I used to tell people I'm a Pennsylvanian first, from Philly second now I'm ashamed to be from both
This is exactly why the "Why don't you move" crap must end. Seems to have died down a bit fortunately, but we need everyone everywhere acting like they're next because they really just may be. And enough is enough.
By the way I'm right over the bridge in Marlton. From here originally but lived in South for a while. No idea how you can stand the place anymore, although there are still some decent areas. For now.
DreadPirateMoyer
04-10-13, 14:38
EDIT: I misread the above post. I realize you were talking about Philly, not PA. My fault, I'm an ass, and sorry.
Huh? The entire state is pretty amazing, especially as a gun owner. Even Philly isn't that bad since we've got state pre-emption of firearms laws and the Philly government can't do piss.
I wish people who know nothing about this state would avoid speaking in ignorance just because we got betrayed by a shitty senator who had an A rating from the NRA.
No PA senator has been reelected after passing a gun control bill. Toomey will be no different should this come to pass, and probably even if it doesn't.
Everyone should be writing and calling their own Senators as well as Toomey and Manchin and McCain today telling them to piss off (in more diplomatic terms). I don't care if your Senator is Schumer.
If the voices get to be so loud that they cannot hear any more (figuratively speaking), it may cause second thoughts in a few minds.
My samples I sent are in the other "compromise" thread.
----
In the NE US Pa is one of the best. Shall issuestate conceal permit, no mag limits, all NFA good to go (if your sheriff signs off), no bans on any "evil" features. Ill take Pa over most other states around here.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 14:42
From the looks of it, PA is much like NY or CA....full of urban blue hells that dictate much of the state's body politic.
No it's not, not even close.
Among other things, Democrats in this state have historically been more reliably pro-gun than the Republicans.
That said, Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) has the highest % of CCW holders in the nation, and I think Pennsylvania has more permit holders than Texas.
That said, I haven't read it fully, but at first blush it doesn't seem too onerous. Among other things "- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer."
It also exempts friends, family members, and neighbors as well.
We all knew they were going to do something. It's not nearly as bad as I would have feared back in December.
That said I may be missing something, so I'm all ears.
brickboy240
04-10-13, 14:55
Lemmie guess...Toomey is not up for re-election in 14?
-brickboy240
Voodoo_Man
04-10-13, 14:58
Lets not speculate on what exactly they are NOT talking about. I want to see the actual wording for myself before I make any personal opinion on the matter. It is very difficult to believe that states like WV and PA want to attack their gun community/culture.
It is very difficult to believe that states like WV and PA want to attack their gun community/culture.
Attack their gun communities? Do you really believe that Toomey sees this as an attack? It isn't an attack, it's another fair and sensible compromise. It will ease the pressure and so long as they don't abuse the list what can it hurt?
That is what he is thinking.
Attack their gun communities? Doe you really believe that Toomey sees this as an attack? It isn't an attack, it's another fair and sensible compromise. It will ease the pressure and so long as they don't abuse the list what can it hurt?
That is what he is thinking.
What did we get from the "compromise"?
This is no compromise, this is giving in. We get exactly nothing that we want out of this. (we == 2A community)
Let's trade the gun show expanded checks for the Hughes Amendment repeal and the "online sale" expanded check for explicit "repeal" o fthe 89 import ban. That is a real compromise.
--
Lets not speculate on what exactly they are NOT talking about. I want to see the actual wording for myself before I make any personal opinion on the matter. It is very difficult to believe that states like WV and PA want to attack their gun community/culture.
Agreed...While I'm not too crazy about what they're proposing, I want to see the actual wording first before passing judgement..Following the link, I was expecting much worse, But, as usual, the devil's in the details....
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 15:33
Agreed...While I'm not too crazy about what they're proposing, I want to see the actual wording first before passing judgement..Following the link, I was expecting much worse, But, as usual, the devil's in the details....
Yup.
I'm still not sure why this is a cave. It's not universal and we already have background checks.
I need more data.
I haven't seen the actual amendment, just what is showing on the link above, but from what I just read, it's not that bad.
Some of it actually looks like a win for us.
This seems like a much better option than the universal background check they were pushing, and it's infinately better than the SAFE act or Fineswines wet dream, which could have gone national.
We all knew something was going to happen, and even if we could have dug in and prevented any new legislation, Dems are not the only ones up for reelection in 2014. If our side had suceeded in getting nothing done, and another mass shooting occures (and it will eventually), the fallout would have been worse, and the chances of greater and more restrictive bills more likely.
Please tell me why this is bad for our side. If I am not seeing the big picture, I'll gladly admit my mistake.
Lemmie guess...Toomey is not up for re-election in 14?
-brickboy240
Correct.
He got elected 2010.
What did we get from the "compromise"?
You must know that "we" are not the ones who were supposed to get anything. They were and they did. Again.
Look PA is unstable at best, period. They vote blue when it counts and now this. To think that anyone is still surprised at this kind of compromise these days is truly befuddling. We as a whole are not displaying adequate intelligence or full awareness in this situation.
DreadPirateMoyer
04-10-13, 15:45
PA is not unstable. Period. It gets more pro-gun here every year, unlike our neighbors. Both our current Senators were supported by the NRA. No PA senator has won reelection after passing a gun control bill.
If anything, PA is the only stable state in the Mid-Atlantic.
Please, stop spreading ignorance.
Please, stop spreading ignorance.
The only ignorance here bro is the failure of many to see what is in front of their faces. And tell me, what is your irrfuatable proof that this compromise is the end? How do you specifically know that there is absolutely nothing left to fear? Really, I want to hear your hard facts.
To think that you're so certain the state that voted Obama twice in a row and loves Rendell will never let you down is a flat out joke.
DreadPirateMoyer
04-10-13, 16:00
The only ignorance here bro is the failure of many to see what is in front of their faces. And tell me, what is your irrfuatable proof that this compromise is the end? How do you specifically know that there is absolutely nothing left to fear? Really, I want to hear your hard facts.
To think that you're so certain the state that voted Obama twice in a row and loves Rendell will never let you down is a flat out joke.
You need to relax. And don't put words in my mouth or strawman me like that. I said nothing about this compromise, its chances of success, if it's the end/beginning of more compromises, or if we have nothing to fear; only about PA being a bastion of gun culture, which it is.
As for PA not letting me down, it hasn't and won't. Look at the recent pro-gun votes in the PA legislature, which passed with near-80% support. Look at the NRA ratings of our politicians. We have the most NRA members in the country as well as some of the highest license-to-carry densities. We have some of the highest hunting license numbers as well. Our courts have routinely ruled and set legal precedent in favor of arms ownership. We have some of the best gun laws in the country and one of the easiest licensing processes for concealed carry. Our state democrats are more pro-gun than most other states' Republicans. Even Arlen Specter was 99% pro-gun.
A few bad votes for the executive (which are indicative of paradoxical pro-gun, pro-labor unions) and two turncoat senators (which were supported by the NRA) don't change that.
Now please, attack Toomey all you want, but don't spread this ridiculousness about PA. It's not true historically or theoretically, and really has nothing to do with Toomey other than the fact that he betrayed his constituency and will be voted out of office like all the other anti-gun Senators in this state.
TL;DR: PA is solid and whatever bone you have to pick with it isn't the point of this discussion.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-10-13, 16:11
Chad is right, this is not compromise, this is incrementalism. We never get anything out of these deals except less infringement on our rights. All that teaches the progressives is to swing and ask for the stars and then ' settle' for something in the middle.
How come this 'compromise' has nothing about school resource officers or expanded self-protection areas .....
The NRA does an ok job, but they have to learn to stop just screaming no and actually get legislation rolling that offers counterpoint to these things. Where are the bills about repeat gun offenders and actual follow up on denied BCGs? Stop fighting these battles on our turf.
Can we take the PA discussion to the regional forum?
PA is solid and whatever bone you have to pick with it isn't the point of this discussion.
You don't understand, I love PA. It is a beautiful state and after my parents divorced in 1980 I lived there for years until I returned to NJ. Graduated high school in Lower Merion Twp at Harriton HS, lived in Gladwyne, Villanova and Downingtown as well as south Philly.
A great state and I'm thankful to have it as our neighbor. But that said I am concerned that it has been a little too not just blue, but also progressive the past few decades. Concentrated in the cities for the most part now, but these things can and do spread. That's what killed NJ.
Being a West Virginian by birth, I hope Manchin doesn't end up being another Bird. Though the way it looks, he is going to be there for a long time.
It will always amaze me at what that state votes for just because of the hatred of the "anti-union" Republicans. I know people who voted for Obama and other local Democrats and W.V. knowing full well that they did not like any of their policies or ideas. They vote for the Democrats simply so they aren't voting for republicans.
My favorite part...
WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO
The bill will not take away anyone's guns.
The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
That's right up there with Obama saying he supports the second amendment.
Crow Hunter
04-10-13, 16:41
This is probably going to get me drop kicked but:
This isn't the actual bill, it is just a summary but I honestly DON'T think this is bad.
Call me a communist or liberal or what ever, but I just don't see it as a bad thing, even not considering how bad it could have been.
-I personally don't feel comfortable selling a gun to someone that I don't personally know and call a friend or family member. Those are excluded.
-Most gun shows that I go to don't have anyone but dealers selling anyway and honestly the few private party transfers that I have seen, I would NOT have gone through with.
-Now you can interstate purchase handguns. That is A BIG improvement for our side. I can now go to dealers that may have selection that just isn't available locally and buy a handgun instead of having to have it shipped to a TN dealer and pay all that extra cost.
-If I do sell a gun that goes through the NICS check, I am protected from liability. This is a good improvement as well. I have sold guns to friends who I found out later sold to some very shady people. I have always been afraid that these guns would wind up in a gang shooting somewhere and get traced back to me.
-CCW permits instead of background checks. It has always aggravated me that I am "trusted" by the government to be standing there with a loaded G19 concealed but I have to pay $10 TIC fee and wait for them to make sure that I am legal to buy a gun.:rolleyes:
-Fixes interstate travel laws.
-Gets more information in the hands of the instant check system. (This will have more impact on preventing crap than anything else)
Yes this is incrementalism. Yes it is a restriction on my right to do what I wish with my own property and yes, that does suck.
However, it is something that does give us some things and it might actually help in a few cases.
There is a HUGE push in the non gun owning public to do "something" about gun control and if this is the worst we have to deal with, I can live with it.
Yes, I guess I am "caving in" but guys, WE are a minority in the gun owning public, much less in the public at large.
This isn't the actual bill, it is just a summary but I honestly DON'T think this is bad.
I do NOT think UBCs will prevent crime or criminal access to weapons in any way.
I DO think it will lay the groundwork for the next "reasonable legislation" which WILL BE registration.
Because UBCs will do NOTHING to prevent the next mass shooting IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY. It will happen and happen again and when we get something "bad enough" Congress will declare that we need to REVISIT the gun control debate.
In my decade or so as a FFL I have had 3 non approvals. Those are three people who attempted to buy a gun and where a PROHIBITED PERSON. Those people were simply told "No" and that was the end of it. They were not tracked down, investigated or arrested.
With UBCs the same process of "approval" or "non approval" will have the same ineffective result. They will simply be told "No" and that will be the end of it. There will be ZERO criminal impact.
The only thing that WILL happen is if somebody ends up doing a private sale with a prohibited person who provides false information then THEY might become criminally liable and they could be tracked down, investigated and arrested.
The only real world change is EVERY firearm transaction will basically become FFL to FFL because private individuals will generally be too scared of the consequences to become responsible for the background check process for somebody they don't know. It will just be easier to pay a FFL to handle the "transfer" and factor an extra $20 into the sale price.
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 17:12
Let me get this straight... you live in New Jersey, a state with some of the more draconian gun laws on the books, and you've got the nerve to blame PA, one of the most pro-gun states around? Whaaaa?
Serious pot on kettle action going on there.
So please, tell me, what's in this bill that's so bad?
Anyone?
I see a lot of talk about incrementalism and other stuff, but if this bill is bad, please point to the bad parts...because so far I'm not seeing it. There is no universal background check, now you can use your CCW permit as well as NICS to buy. It sure seems like we got something out of it.
Crow Hunter
04-10-13, 17:19
I do NOT think UBCs will prevent crime or criminal access to weapons in any way.
I agree it probably won't. But I know locally of a guy who was a prohibited person buying guns. It might keep that from happening.
I DO think it will lay the groundwork for the next "reasonable legislation" which WILL BE registration.
Possibly. But so was the Brady instant check and it hasn't yet and I actually think the Brady check is a good thing
Because UBCs will do NOTHING to prevent the next mass shooting IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY. It will happen and happen again and when we get something "bad enough" Congress will declare that we need to REVISIT the gun control debate.
That will happen regardless.
In my decade or so as a FFL I have had 3 non approvals. Those are three people who attempted to buy a gun and where a PROHIBITED PERSON. Those people were simply told "No" and that was the end of it. They were not tracked down, investigated or arrested.
I agree this is the key issue but it will never be addressed because it isn't high profile enough.
With UBCs the same process of "approval" or "non approval" will have the same ineffective result. They will simply be told "No" and that will be the end of it. There will be ZERO criminal impact.
The only thing that WILL happen is if somebody ends up doing a private sale with a prohibited person who provides false information then THEY might become criminally liable and they could be tracked down, investigated and arrested.
The way I understood it is that the same protection afforded to dealers is afforded to private sellers. Can dealers be prosecuted for people providing false info on a 4473?
The only real world change is EVERY firearm transaction will basically become FFL to FFL because private individuals will generally be too scared of the consequences to become responsible for the background check process for somebody they don't know. It will just be easier to pay a FFL to handle the "transfer" and factor an extra $20 into the sale price.
I figure most people probably do this now. I do.
I would prefer that we do something to enforce the laws that we have now, but I am not really opposed to this law as I understand it.
Let me get this straight... you live in New Jersey, a state with some of the more draconian gun laws on the books, and you've got the nerve to blame PA, one of the most pro-gun states around? Whaaaa?
Serious pot on kettle action going on there.
So please, tell me, what's in this bill that's so bad?
Anyone?
I see a lot of talk about incrementalism and other stuff, but if this bill is bad, please point to the bad parts...because so far I'm not seeing it. There is no universal background check, now you can use your CCW permit as well as NICS to buy. It sure seems like we got something out of it.
TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES
Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.
- Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
I agree this is the key issue but it will never be addressed because it isn't high profile enough.
That IS the key issue and the only thing that will actually address the few criminals dumb enough to try and obtain firearms from a FFL. But if we aren't even willing to do that, then why waste time with anything else.
They get denied, mostly like they ARE going to try and get a gun another way. It's what criminals do. Unfortunately the vast majority aren't stupid enough to try to buy from a dealer, fill out a 4473 and do a NICS check.
If we are going to do something, find something that will be productive and DO THAT. I wouldn't mind the Brady Background Check IF they actually investigated people who were denied. If they aren't willing to do that minimum effort then why the hell should I have to engage in the entire song and dance...? Because I'm NOT a criminal?
It's like illegal immigration. We are ignoring the law completely. Why would anyone in their right mind take the time, trouble and expense to come here legally? When somebody goes through the legal process they are actually punished for their efforts because it is harder than jumping a fence.
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 17:35
TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES
Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.
- Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
Huh...I read family members, friends and neighbors. Must have missed that part.
Likewise if you already possess a CCW, you are also exempted.
So if they are exempted, by definition, I'm pretty sure that's not universal.
Sure it's a bit of a pain in the ass, that said if I'm selling you a gun, and I don't know you from Adam, I'm probably going to insist on doing a NICS at a store, at least I have historically.
That's just me though. I like to cover my ass, and I won't be responsible for putting a weapon into the hands of a scumbag.
What I'm most missing from this compromise is something that requires prosecution for those that break the law in trying to buy a firearm.
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 17:38
TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES
Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.
- Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
- Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
- Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
montanadave
04-10-13, 17:40
Can someone clarify what officials are talking about when discussing "internet gun sales" which do not require a background check. I understand the so-called "gun show loophole" but don't get the other. Are they simply talking about in-state transactions between private individuals where the firearm is advertised on line?
I've purchased firearms on line from both dealers and private owners, but they have all been out-of-state and required an FFL transfer with the requisite 4473 and background check (or CCW in MT). Can folks sell a firearm on the internet in-state and ship it to someone with no face-to-face transaction? Or if the internet is simply a way for buyer and seller to make contact and the sale takes place FTF, how does this proposed legislation change that?
Can someone clarify what officials are talking about when discussing "internet gun sales" which do not require a background check. I understand the so-called "gun show loophole" but don't get the other. Are they simply talking about in-state transactions between private individuals where the firearm is advertised on line?
I've purchased firearms on line from both dealers and private owners, but they have all been out-of-state and required an FFL transfer with the requisite 4473 and background check (or CCW in MT). Can folks sell a firearm on the internet in-state and ship it to someone with no face-to-face transaction? Or if the internet is simply a way for buyer and seller to make contact and the sale takes place FTF, how does this proposed legislation change that?
For years it was always the "guns how loop hole" now all the talk is "Internet sales". I too am confused, I buy 90% of my guns via the Internet which go to my ffl... I think they are referring to places like armslist. The issue is with the way the media is "reporting" it to the uninformed, the uniformed think anybody can just order a gun and have it shipped to your door...
Maybe they are referring to this::p:p
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57490026-501465/amazon-customer-receives-gun-instead-of-tv/
(CBS News) Seth Horvitz ordered a flat-panel TV through an Amazon.com third-party vendor, but when his package came in the mail, its contents shocked him.
Can someone clarify what officials are talking about when discussing "internet gun sales" which do not require a background check.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/vp/51476985
Essentially, many elected representatives are so ****ing stupid and clueless, they literally think you can go on Amazon.com and ship a pistol to your house. They either (1) have no idea that every firearm purchased online is transferred to a FFL holder and subject to NICS or equally likely, (2) they are just lying and figure the general public won't know the difference.
We have an unfortunate culture of stupidity problem.
What's interesting about this bill:
1: A person living in IN could go across state lines to buy pistols = win
2: If a gun is purchased from an online retailer, the online retailer does 4473 and the gun is shipped directly to the purchaser...not sure how that would work and is much looser then the current laws and IMO would open the doors for fraud.
boggyboy72
04-10-13, 18:11
I haven't seen the actual amendment, just what is showing on the link above, but from what I just read, it's not that bad.
Some of it actually looks like a win for us.
This seems like a much better option than the universal background check they were pushing, and it's infinately better than the SAFE act or Fineswines wet dream, which could have gone national.
We all knew something was going to happen, and even if we could have dug in and prevented any new legislation, Dems are not the only ones up for reelection in 2014. If our side had suceeded in getting nothing done, and another mass shooting occures (and it will eventually), the fallout would have been worse, and the chances of greater and more restrictive bills more likely.
Please tell me why this is bad for our side. If I am not seeing the big picture, I'll gladly admit my mistake.
I kind of agree with you.I hope it can be killed somehow,but if something HAS to happen this isn't so bad.
And if some of the people that vote for this lose their jobs over it maybe the "survivors" will think twice next time.
Crow Hunter
04-10-13, 18:23
Can someone clarify what officials are talking about when discussing "internet gun sales" which do not require a background check. I understand the so-called "gun show loophole" but don't get the other. Are they simply talking about in-state transactions between private individuals where the firearm is advertised on line?
I've purchased firearms on line from both dealers and private owners, but they have all been out-of-state and required an FFL transfer with the requisite 4473 and background check (or CCW in MT). Can folks sell a firearm on the internet in-state and ship it to someone with no face-to-face transaction? Or if the internet is simply a way for buyer and seller to make contact and the sale takes place FTF, how does this proposed legislation change that?
I can within my state.
From my understanding, in TN, it is legal for me to buy a gun from someone in East TN and have the gun shipped to my door without ever meeting face to face or doing any type of background check. As long as I "know" that person is permitted to own a firearm. I know of people who have done it. (Swapping long guns at least)
Me, no way. I only sell to people I know personally. Otherwise, I go through a dealer.
gunrunner505
04-10-13, 18:24
If I have to listen to one more political hack cry into a microphone about a common sense approach I'm going to puke. I'm so sick of guys who don't know an AR-15 from a freakin 747 talking about common sense. **** them.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Mauser KAR98K
04-10-13, 18:47
I do not see what the big fear about this bill is as it sits in the summery. I am very curious as to what the rest of bill says and the implementation.
But after the country experienced one of the worst school massacres because it involved little kids in an elementary school, and this is the worst that comes to the floor for a vote; holy shit we should be jumping for joy. Just three weeks ago, DiFi had her AWB bill out of committee, but the Reid did not let it get tabled for vote or brought to the floor.
Yes, it will stop private to private sales without back ground checks... FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. It WILL ban the Feds from creating a National Registry with a GO TO JAIL penalty. This also takes off the liability of individual sellers in case the guy who bought the weapon goes on a killing spree. The best part is I can use my CHP for the check instead of waiting for hours for the check to clear.
This should also give us the leverage to the Left that yes, bad guys are still going to get weapons via theft, straw purchases (this bill will not stop them) or people who will forgo the NISC and this new law. They are ****ing bad guys. Duh.
What I AM concerned about is the mental health part of this. Really want to know more about that before I give my final approval for this. I don't like it that it has come to this, but this is the best thing we could get after what happened in December.
Granted, this is not the full bill, so we will have to see what the rest says.
We really need to be very vigilent during the amendment process. San Fran Nan could put in a AWB in the large bill (remember Obamacare) that no one will see until it passes. We can also use the amendment process by tell our GOP law makers to take suppressors off the NFA list, or SBRs, and lift the importation ban, or strike away the "sporting purposes" out of the ATF language, in order to gain our support...if you so choose.
I had laid out points on how I could go along with a UBC, and the summary this bill has posted has hit a large portion of them.
Again, I am not happy this has come. But all things considering of what we were looking at, the better access and convenience this bill gives us LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS, we should be sighing instead of harping.
Here are deserting opinions and views of the bill, however, those I will be paying close attention to.
UTAH Sen. says it will lead to Eric Holder creating a National Registry.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/sen-lee-backgound-checks-could-allow-holder-create-gun-registry-using
This bill would not have stopped Lanza.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senate-aide-gun-law-wouldnt-have-stopped-newtown-massacre_716215.html
Democrat offical says Obama's plan is to confiscate all guns (warning INFO WARS)
http://www.infowars.com/video-democrat-admits-obama-agenda-is-total-gun-ban/
Keep your heads on a swivel about this.
If this does pass as it sits in the summery, any next gun law that comes up I will scream a big **** NO! This is my line.
Huh...I read family members, friends and neighbors. Must have missed that part.
Likewise if you already possess a CCW, you are also exempted.
So if they are exempted, by definition, I'm pretty sure that's not universal.
Sure it's a bit of a pain in the ass, that said if I'm selling you a gun, and I don't know you from Adam, I'm probably going to insist on doing a NICS at a store, at least I have historically.
That's just me though. I like to cover my ass, and I won't be responsible for putting a weapon into the hands of a scumbag.
What I'm most missing from this compromise is something that requires prosecution for those that break the law in trying to buy a firearm.
It said "some" exemptions like family and neighbors but that leaves lots of room for gray areas. It's not truly universal but it's more universal than what was before and it won't really solve a damn thing.
I think it is just another baby step in a direction we don't want to go in exchange for NOTHING more than a brief respite in the character assassination currently suffered by gun owners as we are cowed into yet another concession.
If it's "acceptable" to you and you want to focus on what you believe are "good parts" then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm just pointing out the parts that make me terribly uneasy. It's not just that I don't feel good about where this train is headed, I don't even want to be on the train at all.
Can folks sell a firearm on the internet in-state and ship it to someone with no face-to-face transaction?
Yes, unless state law prohibits it.
montanadave
04-10-13, 19:17
Yes, unless state law prohibits it.
That, to me, seems pretty ****ed up. I would never consider selling a firearm to someone I had not personally met. And I would also need to see confirmation of their age and get a signed bill of sale. All simply to cover my ass.
I'm not losing too much sleep over this bill in its current form. It could have been much, much worse.
Does This law doesn't really change shit? Don't get me wrong I am 100 percent against it....can't give them and inch since they already took a mile.
- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
So basically I can sell my gun at a gun show to an "other" is they way I read this.
FlyingHunter
04-10-13, 20:41
I think it is just another baby step in a direction we don't want to go in exchange for NOTHING more than a brief respite in the character assassination currently suffered by gun owners as we are cowed into yet another concession.
If it's "acceptable" to you and you want to focus on what you believe are "good parts" then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm just pointing out the parts that make me terribly uneasy. It's not just that I don't feel good about where this train is headed, I don't even want to be on the train at all.
This comment is spot on!
Fwiw Toomey said he is only for universal background checks and the minute it becomes a registry he is against it. We'll see.
So their calling it The Public Safety and 2nd Amendment Protection Act I hear? Ha...
Fwiw Toomey said he is only for universal background checks and the minute it becomes a registry he is against it. We'll see.
They said similar things in 1934, 1968 and 1986. Yet here we are...again. And what will be the point of being against it AFTER it's happened. ATF wasn't supposed to create a 4473 database because at first 4473s could be destroyed after only 10 years. But again, here we are.
The thing to do is to STOP the bad idea before it becomes a law that is then abused.
PA is not unstable.
This is the most idiotic post I have read on here since the sandy hook shooting.
Once again, you are one of those east coast persons that think your state is conservative.
Your state is not pro gun and not conservative. You don't know what real conservatism is.
In the high plains and upper rocky mountain states is real conservatism. People driving around with AR-15s in truck windows.
So their calling it The Public Safety and 2nd Amendment Protection Act I hear? Ha...
I bet if they just called it The Minority Protection Act they could get some people to vote for segregation again. I don't know which awes me more, how stupid they assume people are or how stupid it turns out some people really are.
brushy bill
04-10-13, 21:36
I bet if they just called it The Minority Protection Act they could get some people to vote for segregation again. I don't know which awes me more, how stupid they assume people are or how stupid it turns out some people really are.
I would go with the latter.
brushy bill
04-10-13, 21:37
In the high plains and upper rocky mountain states is real conservatism. People driving around with AR-15s in truck windows.
You mean like Colorado?
You mean like Colorado?
Colorado is not an upper rocky mountain state.
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 21:53
This is the most idiotic post I have read on here since the sandy hook shooting.
Once again, you are one of those east coast persons that think your state is conservative.
Your state is not pro gun and not conservative. You don't know what real conservatism is.
In the high plains and upper rocky mountain states is real conservatism. People driving around with AR-15s in truck windows.
Ever been to Pennsylvania? Apparently not.
I'd bet we have more CCW holders here than in your state. In fact, I bet we have more than all those high rocky mountain states combined.
I love how people make assumptions about people who live in other places.
For instance I could have sworn that everyone in Nebraska is a goatf*(ker. :)
Colorado is not an upper rocky mountain state.
I think his point was CO was once as much "gun country" as any part of this nation. Of course so was CA...once. I don't think any place is safe or immune. All you need is a sufficient influx of leftists and the establishment of their political bias as "normal, sane and natural" and the way all reasonable people should think.
I bet if they just called it The Minority Protection Act they could get some people to vote for segregation again. I don't know which awes me more, how stupid they assume people are or how stupid it turns out some people really are.
Well they do it because the people let them get away with it, so theirs your answer. Its the peoples fault.
- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
How is this different from what we already have? Isn't there already something like this in existence?
I know right now in Utah my CCW permit exempts me form paying the BGC fee and they only make a quick call in to the local gun check people, not the Federal system with the CCW.
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
What does this mean? Does this mean a face to face in a gun store outside my state?
- Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 22:32
How is this different from what we already have? Isn't there already something like this in existence?
Not in my state. I checked.
I know right now in Utah my CCW permit exempts me form paying the BGC fee and they only make a quick call in to the local gun check people, not the Federal system with the CCW.
Ok, not here in PA.
What does this mean? Does this mean a face to face in a gun store outside my state?
My understanding is that you can walk into a gunstore out of state and buy a handgun.
Of course this all depends on what's in the final bill passage.
I'd bet we have more CCW holders here than in your state. In fact, I bet we have more than all those high rocky mountain states combined.
The question is, what is the percentage of CCW carriers in PA vs anywhere else, if you want to use that as a measure. Absolute value of CCW is useless as a measure.
Has PA had a "constitutional carry" bill before the legislature? Did it pass?
Utah has had them a few times, and a watered down one passed this year, but the stupid Governor vetoed it. IT passed with enough votes to override the veto if it comes up in a special session. We'll see if that happens before mid May.
I just went and looked up CCW per state. According to this site:
http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm
Pennsylvania has about 786000 CCW holders out of about 12,763,536 people (2012 estimate per US Census) == about 6.16%
Utah has 411604 out of about 2,855,287 people (2012 estimate per US Census) = 14.42%
Even if 1/2 of those Utah permits are out of state, since Utah is one of the more popular permits, that would still be 7.21% of the population...
Come again?
I love how people make assumptions about people who live in other places.
For instance I could have sworn that everyone in Nebraska is a goatf*(ker. :)
DreadPirateMoyer
04-10-13, 22:43
This is the most idiotic post I have read on here since the sandy hook shooting.
Once again, you are one of those east coast persons that think your state is conservative.
Your state is not pro gun and not conservative. You don't know what real conservatism is.
In the high plains and upper rocky mountain states is real conservatism. People driving around with AR-15s in truck windows.
You live in a state that has a permit required to purchase handguns (PA doesn't), does not have full state pre-emption of firearms laws (PA does), has a firearms registry in some of your cities (PA doesn't), does not have an explicit castle law or stand your ground law on the books (PA does), requires fingerprints to be submitted/training classes to be taken for a CHP (PA doesn't), does not allow you to concealed carry in a BOAT LOAD of places (PA lets you carry everywhere except courthouses and federal buildings), has a duty to notify police when carrying (PA doesn't), and has restricted open carry (PA doesn't other than Philly)?
I'm pretty confident that I'm not the idiot here. PA is not pro-gun? Well in that case, Nebraska must be Nazi Germany, considering PA's gun laws are way, way better than Nebraska's. You need to get out more, or more likely, not call people names when you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Toomey is probably more of a flip flopper than Nebraska's reps, though. And, you know, Toomey and this gun control compromise are the whole point of this thread -- not bashing Pennsylvania (one of the most pro-gun states in the union -- moreso than your state almost every Southern and Western state, in fact).
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 22:44
The question is, what is the percentage of CCW carriers in PA vs anywhere else, if you want to use that as a measure. Absolute value of CCW is useless as a measure.
Has PA had a "constitutional carry" bill before the legislature? Did it pass?
My county, Allegheny Country has the highest % of CCW permits in the country.
Based on numbers, PA is ranked 2nd in CCW permits, more than Texas, way more than Utah, only Florida is higher.
PA is considering a Constitutional provision, Utah is done. That said Vermont has Constitutional carry and they are about to pass a fairly restrictive gun ban according to my brother-in-law.
That said, based on % (as good as any arbitrary measure I suppose) I'm sure PA isn't as pro-gun as Utah...calling it an anti-gun however is something else.
Gutshot John
04-10-13, 22:52
nevermind
DreadPirateMoyer
04-10-13, 23:03
The amount of people in this thread that are epically butthurt about PA being extremely pro-gun is really weird. It's as if they don't want it to be and this Toomey thing gave them all the reason they needed to celebrate.
The amount of people in this thread that are epically butthurt about PA being extremely pro-gun is really weird. It's as if they don't want it to be and this Toomey thing gave them all the reason they needed to celebrate.
Its not so much that people are butt hurt about it, its that they don't see it being so like you claim. Toomey and voting for Obama are part of that.
PA is definitely one of the good guys when it comes to guns.
--
Ever been to Pennsylvania? Apparently not.
I'd bet we have more CCW holders here than in your state. In fact, I bet we have more than all those high rocky mountain states combined.
I love how people make assumptions about people who live in other places.
For instance I could have sworn that everyone in Nebraska is a goatf*(ker. :)
You do not have more gun owners per capita than the western states.
You live in a state that has a permit required to purchase handguns (PA doesn't),
It is a $5 card that waves a nics check. It gives you piece of mind when doing FTF sales if you choose to do so. You don't need it if you have a CCW.
does not have full state pre-emption of firearms laws (PA does),
Irrelevant.
has a firearms registry in some of your cities (PA doesn't),
It has handgun registration in Omaha. One city. I'm sure some of your metro areas have some bullshit I could dig up.
does not have an explicit castle law or stand your ground law on the books (PA does),
Irrelevant
has a duty to notify police when carrying (PA doesn't),
You do not have to offer this information up unless asked.
and has restricted open carry (PA doesn't other than Philly)?
NE does not have restricted open carry.
You also can't hunt with a semi automatic rifle in PA.
PA is not some bastion of freedom. It sent bam bam to the white house twice.
It is also full of white trash unionized steel and coal industry people that vote in lockstep for the democrats, that drive around with Obama bumper stickers on their truck next to their favorite hunting/gun bumper sticker.
Gutshot John
04-11-13, 08:08
You do not have more gun owners per capita than the western states.
More per capita? So? I don't know that I know what the statistics of gunownership are, but I'd agree with that, of course my county has more than twice the population of Wyoming. I would bet that we have a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than Texas. I know we have more CCW holders and Texas is a much bigger state in population. Eliminate Philly and I'd bet per capita gun ownership in PA is comparable to any state in the West.
Likewise my county has the highest number of CCW per capita in the nation, though I guess you don't really need CCW out there riding your ranch on the high plains. Woohoo cowboy. :meeting:
Never mind that Toomey is/was a tea party darling. Never mind that the alternative to Toomey was an anti-gun Senator with a 100% rating from Brady (guess who lost?).
All of this of course ignores that IT'S STILL JUST A BILL. It hasn't been debated, it hasn't been amended, it hasn't been clotured. If you don't like the bill, write your Senator/Congressman (I know I've contacted Toomey 3 times in the last two weeks). Now then, can someone please point me to what specifically upsets you about the bill. I really want to know and understand. My sense though is no one has actually read the legislation.
What parts of the bill are objectionable? I'm more than happy to contact Toomey (again) and make those objections known.
So far I see a few things that are annoying but really not much different than we had before, and in exchange we got a few nice perks. Do those perks make it a good bill? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. What's the cost of those perks? Explain it to me. How did Toomey sell us out?
The point is that comparing PA to anti-gun states in the NE like NY, CT, MA, NJ etc. is asinine. This state is as pro-gun as it gets.
DreadPirateMoyer
04-11-13, 08:32
It is a $5 card that waves a nics check. It gives you piece of mind when doing FTF sales if you choose to do so. You don't need it if you have a CCW.
Irrelevant.
It has handgun registration in Omaha. One city. I'm sure some of your metro areas have some bullshit I could dig up.
Irrelevant
You do not have to offer this information up unless asked.
NE does not have restricted open carry.
You also can't hunt with a semi automatic rifle in PA.
PA is not some bastion of freedom. It sent bam bam to the white house twice.
It is also full of white trash unionized steel and coal industry people that vote in lockstep for the democrats, that drive around with Obama bumper stickers on their truck next to their favorite hunting/gun bumper sticker.
TL;DR: PA is more pro-gun than NE, but you refuse to recognize it because you're mad about unions. K. Glad we could have a rational discussion about this.
P.S.: you need to learn your own laws. They're not that great for a "pro-gun" state. Compared to PA, your CCW is harder to get (fingerprints? really?), you can't carry it in as many places, you need a permit or CCW to buy a handgun, you DO have to notify police, you don't have state pre-emption (which is totally relevant since NE localities can and do create a spiderweb of conflicting laws that make certain people criminals just for going to the next town over), you DO have restricted open carry (local bans on OC supersede state law), signs DO carry legal weight, and your VERY relevant lack of a castle law means you only have an affirmative defense in a justifiable homicide, forcing you to appear in court when charges are pressed against you for murder. But I guess PA is somehow anti-gun because you can't hunt with a semi-auto and there are union guys in Pittsburgh. :rolleyes:
Here's your homework assignment: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/nebraska.pdf
Read up and stop trolling this thread. You're objectively wrong about PA, saying its worse than where you live is factually incorrect, and you keep derailing this thread with unrelated misinformation. Toomey had an A rating from the NRA. PA did its part. He flipped once he got comfy in the Senate. We'll do our part again when he comes up for reelection, just as we have done to every other Senator that passed anti-gun bills. That's the end of the damned story with regards to PA.
Mauser KAR98K
04-11-13, 08:38
Can we get back on topic, please. I could care less at this point with which state is more pro-gun than others.
We are fighting for our rights. Best to band together. Shit, no wonder why we are kinda loosing.
Anyways; here is a good article about the absurdity of a UBC. Read, think, write your senators with the key points.
http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=50283&n=commentaries-absurdity-universal-background-checks
As stated from my previous post, this bill as it says in the summery is a lot better than what many thought was going to come. But I still don't fully support it.
Phillygunguy
04-11-13, 08:42
WTF! I go to work come back to my post and it's a Lets bash PA thread!? This isn't a " my Dicks bigger than yours because my State is more pro gun " post. Can we get back on topic please?
DreadPirateMoyer
04-11-13, 08:55
WTF! I go to work come back to my post and it's a Lets bash PA thread!? This isn't a " my Dicks bigger than yours because my State is more pro gun " post. Can we get back on topic please?
Agreed. The only reason I'm replying and posting this stuff is because people are turning Toomey's betrayal into a referendum on all of PA, which is totally off-base. We're solid here and when it comes to guns. Can't help it that one of our NRA-endorsed Senators flipflopped post-election.
EDIT: I'm just feeding the flames at this point. PA is one of the most pro-gun states in the union and will continue to be for decades to come. If you're incapable of accepting that, you've obviously got an irrational bone to pick. I'm going to go watch Kate Upton do the Catdaddy now, follow it up with some beef jerky, and finish up by calling Toomey's office to tell him that I can't wait to primary his dumb ass.
this is the root of the problem and the reason why we are all phucked... you guys are bitching at each other about which state is better instead of getting together to do something about it.
I don't know what can be done about it, but fighting about which state has better gun laws may soon be irrelevant if that is all we continue to do.
You live in a state that has a permit required to purchase handguns (PA doesn't), does not have full state pre-emption of firearms laws (PA does), has a firearms registry in some of your cities (PA doesn't), does not have an explicit castle law or stand your ground law on the books (PA does), requires fingerprints to be submitted/training classes to be taken for a CHP (PA doesn't), does not allow you to concealed carry in a BOAT LOAD of places (PA lets you carry everywhere except courthouses and federal buildings), has a duty to notify police when carrying (PA doesn't), and has restricted open carry (PA doesn't other than Philly)?
I'm pretty confident that I'm not the idiot here. PA is not pro-gun? Well in that case, Nebraska must be Nazi Germany, considering PA's gun laws are way, way better than Nebraska's. You need to get out more, or more likely, not call people names when you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Toomey is probably more of a flip flopper than Nebraska's reps, though. And, you know, Toomey and this gun control compromise are the whole point of this thread -- not bashing Pennsylvania (one of the most pro-gun states in the union -- moreso than your state almost every Southern and Western state, in fact).
Pa also has " the right to keep and bear shall not be questioned" in the state constitution.
Phillygunguy
04-11-13, 10:09
this is the root of the problem and the reason why we are all phucked... you guys are bitching at each other about which state is better instead of getting together to do something about it.
I don't know what can be done about it, but fighting about which state has better gun laws may soon be irrelevant if that is all we continue to do.
Great point
VooDoo6Actual
04-11-13, 10:26
It is this bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c&feature=youtu.be
montanadave
04-11-13, 10:30
It is this bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c&feature=youtu.be
As Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
I'm waiting to see the EXACT language in this bill. All the "talking points" in the world are as meaningless as the ridiculous title. I guarantee there's something in there that is a complete deal breaker, which will be completely buried by the press.
One thing in one bill that I have heard but can't find the link... It's either in that bill or one of the others...
If you have a gun stolen, upon noticing that it is gone,,,, you have 24 hours to report it to the Police AND the Attorney General... or you may be subject 5 years in prison.
So basically it's set up to make as many law abiding people into potential criminals as possible.
It is this bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c&feature=youtu.be
I wonder how much of our society is basically mentally asleep? ... and that easily susceptible to being duped in that manner. That's basically the Liberal/Progressive methodology at work there.
... and ironically their new catch phrase is "common sense".
montanadave
04-11-13, 10:58
I think there is some real resistance (even among those who are inclined to support at least passing cloture to debate the bill on the Senate floor) until they actually can read all the fine print.
This looks like another effort by leadership to strong arm a vote before the ink is even dry ... and it may backfire. Of course, that is just what the Democrats want so they can paint the GOP as obstructionists who are denying the will of the people.
Gun control. Immigration. Entitlement reform. Abortion. It's all the same shit. There's no real desire to accomplish a ****ing thing. It's just another opportunity to embarrass the opposition party and drum up some sound bites for a 30-second campaign spot.
Gutshot John
04-11-13, 11:22
One thing in one bill that I have heard but can't find the link... It's either in that bill or one of the others...
If you have a gun stolen, upon noticing that it is gone,,,, you have 24 hours to report it to the Police AND the Attorney General... or you may be subject 5 years in prison.
So basically it's set up to make as many law abiding people into potential criminals as possible.
How many people are actually prosecuted for that? I'm sure some are, but it seems a lot more likely that it would be a civil penalty.
As a crime, they would have to prove that you knew something at a specific time and could have acted on that information. That's incredibly difficult. That threshold is substantially lowered in a civil case.
You can march an army through the legal hole of "upon noticing that it is gone" so I'm not sure how effective it is as a tool for turning law abiding people into criminals.
brickboy240
04-11-13, 11:23
Gun control, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty are all distraction issues. Brought up to distract from the fact that our leaders are doing next to NOTHING about our economic and monetary problems.
-brickboy240
Gutshot John
04-11-13, 11:25
I think there is some real resistance (even among those who are inclined to support at least passing cloture to debate the bill on the Senate floor) until they actually can read all the fine print.
This looks like another effort by leadership to strong arm a vote before the ink is even dry ... and it may backfire. Of course, that is just what the Democrats want so they can paint the GOP as obstructionists who are denying the will of the people.
Gun control. Immigration. Entitlement reform. Abortion. It's all the same shit. There's no real desire to accomplish a ****ing thing. It's just another opportunity to embarrass the opposition party and drum up some sound bites for a 30-second campaign spot.
True enough. I desperately want to see the Bill.
Point of order chairman... cloture actually ends debate. :)
You can march an army through the legal hole of "upon noticing that it is gone" so I'm not sure how effective it is as a tool for turning law abiding people into criminals.
Then it has no business being in our lives. If accused, you still have to prove your innocence. By it's nature, if your gun is stolen you are presumed guilty and have to prove otherwise. That potential situation should not exist.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-13, 11:31
It is this bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c&feature=youtu.be
I was waiting for someone to go "Oh, I'll sign it!!" and then wing it into the ocean....
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-13, 11:36
One thing in one bill that I have heard but can't find the link... It's either in that bill or one of the others...
If you have a gun stolen, upon noticing that it is gone,,,, you have 24 hours to report it to the Police AND the Attorney General... or you may be subject 5 years in prison.
So basically it's set up to make as many law abiding people into potential criminals as possible.
Another thing that would only work if there is a gun registry. Get a gun stolen and don't report it, who cares, just say you sold it to someone and don't have the records....
Another thing that would only work if there is a gun registry. Get a gun stolen and don't report it, who cares, just say you sold it to someone and don't have the records....
And I just seen in the obituaries that he was killed in an auto accident or succumbed to cancer last week.
Gutshot John
04-11-13, 14:40
TIf accused, you still have to prove your innocence. By it's nature, if your gun is stolen you are presumed guilty and have to prove otherwise. That potential situation should not exist.
Uhm...no. Where did you get that? You probably should know better. Pretty much our whole justice system is premised on innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Unless of course you believe OJ proved his innocence. :rolleyes:
That's why you added that big old qualifier "upon noticing that it is gone." The law provides for a legal defense. They're specifically exempting those who were not aware that their gun was gone. That's what laws do.
How does a prosecutor prove that you knew your weapon was missing and did not make an attempt to notify law enforcement?
I don't know about your state but I'm pretty sure my state has a requirement that you report a stolen weapon. I also think it's plain old personal responsibility to report a stolen weapon as soon as you discover it.
So again, can you show me a case where anyone has been prosecuted with this...nevermind that you said it was designed to turn the law abiding into criminals.
Does anyone have text of the legislation yet?
Gun control, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty are all distraction issues. Brought up to distract from the fact that our leaders are doing next to NOTHING about our economic and monetary problems.
-brickboy240
Yeah, pretty much. They leave it sit there and use it when they need to distract joe blow.
Phillygunguy
04-11-13, 16:45
This is exactly why the "Why don't you move" crap must end. Seems to have died down a bit fortunately, but we need everyone everywhere acting like they're next because they really just may be. And enough is enough.
By the way I'm right over the bridge in Marlton. From here originally but lived in South for a while. No idea how you can stand the place anymore, although there are still some decent areas. For now.
I Got family in Mt Ephram and Glendora I don't know how you can live in NJ as a gun owner
platoonDaddy
04-11-13, 17:01
So that’s how the squishy RINOS like Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk flip-flopped on gun control. They were boozing it up with Joe Manchin on his yacht which is docked at National Harbor in Maryland. This wasn’t a one time event, it happened multiple times. In fact, Illinois RINO Mark Kirk seems to have a mancrush on Democrat Joe Manchin. Also, Manchin’s yacht is pretty pretty big, a good place for boozing and politics. Manchin’s yacht is reportedly a 54 foot yacht which is called ‘The Black Tie.’ It’s equipped with “two staterooms, a salon, wet bar, washer and dryer, master bath and shower and entertainment center.”
Must be nice. Manchin is a typical Democrat 1%er that leftists claim to hate, yet he boozes up with Democrats and Republicans on his ‘Black Tie’ yacht. Is Manchin a trust fund baby or something? How does someone go from being governor of West Virginia to Senator and accumulate that kind of wealth?
Senator Mark Kirk even bragged about ‘ties getting loosened’ on the ‘The Black Tie’ yacht from all the boozing. I wonder how frequent a quest Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have been.
Phillygunguy
04-11-13, 17:07
PA is not unstable. Period. It gets more pro-gun here every year, unlike our neighbors. Both our current Senators were supported by the NRA. No PA senator has won reelection after passing a gun control bill.
If anything, PA is the only stable state in the Mid-Atlantic.
Please, stop spreading ignorance.
Sorry dude I disagree PA was stable, we now have MAIG Shira Goodman & Ceasefire PA and now that whore AG Kathleen Cane who was Bloomberg bought, plus there's talk Corbett may be a one term Gov. So I don't trust anything, since that piece of shit communist mother****ing cult leader got in the WH
platoonDaddy
04-11-13, 17:36
Sorry dude I disagree PA was stable, we now have MAIG Shira Goodman & Ceasefire PA and now that whore AG Kathleen Cane who was Bloomberg bought, plus there's talk Corbett may be a one term Gov.
So I don't trust anything, since that piece of shit communist mother****ing cult leader got in the WH
I believe PA is going down, why you ask:
My brother is still living in Western PA (we were born and raised there in a VERY small village) and is supporting the AWB and magazine restriction. He as I was raised with a gun in hand when we were 10 years old and for whatever reason he is backing the bitch from Philly. He isn't alone, it is very disturbing to talk to my old Pa friends on this subject, how frigign sad.
Corbett hasn't raised taxes and has or is near balancing the budget. Philly & Pittsburgh are against him, therefore he is in harms way.
Progressive AG, two liberal senators and the state went twice for obama.
As previously stated: Pa is going down. :mad:
TL;DR: PA is more pro-gun than NE, but you refuse to recognize it because you're mad about unions. K. Glad we could have a rational discussion about this.
P.S.: you need to learn your own laws. They're not that great for a "pro-gun" state. Compared to PA, your CCW is harder to get (fingerprints? really?), you can't carry it in as many places, you need a permit or CCW to buy a handgun, you DO have to notify police, you don't have state pre-emption (which is totally relevant since NE localities can and do create a spiderweb of conflicting laws that make certain people criminals just for going to the next town over), you DO have restricted open carry (local bans on OC supersede state law), signs DO carry legal weight, and your VERY relevant lack of a castle law means you only have an affirmative defense in a justifiable homicide, forcing you to appear in court when charges are pressed against you for murder. But I guess PA is somehow anti-gun because you can't hunt with a semi-auto and there are union guys in Pittsburgh. :rolleyes:
Here's your homework assignment: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/nebraska.pdf
Read up and stop trolling this thread. You're objectively wrong about PA, saying its worse than where you live is factually incorrect, and you keep derailing this thread with unrelated misinformation. Toomey had an A rating from the NRA. PA did its part. He flipped once he got comfy in the Senate. We'll do our part again when he comes up for reelection, just as we have done to every other Senator that passed anti-gun bills. That's the end of the damned story with regards to PA.
Oh how smart you are.
First off, our state attorney general suited local cities into conforming to the state CCW laws. There are no bans on CCW or OC in any town/city in NE.
How is that castle doctrine working out when you get your gun confiscated, get fired from your job, have to get a lawyer, and have a $100K legal bill while under police investigation for a year and get smeared in the liberal newspaper. Castle doctrine does nothing to protect you from these things.
You shoot someone, you are still going down to the station and your life is still going to be ****ed.
You ****ing senator caused this mess that we are discussing in this thread. Both of mine voted to support the filibuster.
Your state voted for bam bam twice. If bam bam wasn't in power, we wouldn't be having this thread.
68 senators voted to move this forward. How do you think our chances are now that an AWB wont be attached to this? Feeling lucking now?
Remember, just like obamacare wasn't going to pass.
Phillygunguy
04-11-13, 18:23
Oh how smart you are.
First off, our state attorney general suited local cities into conforming to the state CCW laws. There are no bans on CCW or OC in any town/city in NE.
How is that castle doctrine working out when you get your gun confiscated, get fired from your job, have to get a lawyer, and have a $100K legal bill while under police investigation for a year and get smeared in the liberal newspaper. Castle doctrine does nothing to protect you from these things.
You shoot someone, you are still going down to the station and your life is still going to be ****ed.
You ****ing senator caused this mess that we are discussing in this thread. Both of mine voted to support the filibuster.
Your state voted for bam bam twice. If bam bam wasn't in power, we wouldn't be having this thread.
68 senators voted to move this forward. How do you think our chances are now that an AWB wont be attached to this? Feeling lucking now?
Remember, just like obamacare wasn't going to pass.
And Obama wasn't supposed to win re election with the 7.8 unemployment either
Belmont31R
04-11-13, 18:35
The RINO crew is tripping over themselves trying to pass the liberal agenda.
Maybe the rest of the country can take note and replace their RINO's like McStain and Grahamnesty with people like Cruz and Paul.
brushy bill
04-11-13, 18:39
I think his point was CO was once as much "gun country" as any part of this nation. Of course so was CA...once. I don't think any place is safe or immune. All you need is a sufficient influx of leftists and the establishment of their political bias as "normal, sane and natural" and the way all reasonable people should think.
Exactly!
Gutshot John
04-11-13, 19:39
Oh how smart you are.
First off, our state attorney general suited local cities into conforming to the state CCW laws. There are no bans on CCW or OC in any town/city in NE.
So there are no bans on CCW or OC in any local municipality in PA that I'm aware of. I'm not sure where you got that.
How is that castle doctrine working out when you get your gun confiscated, get fired from your job, have to get a lawyer, and have a $100K legal bill while under police investigation for a year and get smeared in the liberal newspaper. Castle doctrine does nothing to protect you from these things.
As true for Nebraska as it is for Pennsylvania.
You shoot someone, you are still going down to the station and your life is still going to be ****ed.
As true for Nebraska as it is for Pennsylvania.
You ****ing senator caused this mess that we are discussing in this thread. Both of mine voted to support the filibuster.
That's great, the difference is that if I had voted against Toomey I would have been putting a 100% anti-gun Senator in office and we would be discussing an outright ban instead of expanded background checks.
Both Senators have "A" ratings from the NRA. You might not like their position now, but guess what hindsight is 20/20.
Your state voted for bam bam twice. If bam bam wasn't in power, we wouldn't be having this thread.
You really can't be serious.
68 senators voted to move this forward. How do you think our chances are now that an AWB wont be attached to this? Feeling lucking now?
Remember, just like obamacare wasn't going to pass.
You don't know how the process works do you? The overwhelming majority of bills that get sent to the floor, fail to become law.
I don't recall anyone saying obamacare wasn't going to pass. In fact I remember being quite convinced of the opposite.
There is plenty of opportunity for other filibusters.
Of course, all of this ignores the fact that no one hear has read the bill, nor can point to what they object to.
brushy bill
04-11-13, 20:44
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17709187-newtown-passion-moves-senate-vote-on-guns?lite
This was real special. I also learned from National Association for Gun Rights that the following senators helped stop the boycott. Notice the A ratings from NRA. I'm a Benefactor member, so not 'anti-NRA' by any stretch, but if "we" are promoting their ilk, what are "we" thinking and why am I bothering?
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) – NRA A rated
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) – NRA A rated
Richard Burr (N.C.) – NRA A rated
Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) – NRA A rated
Tom Coburn (Okla.) – NRA A rated
Bob Corker (Tenn.) – NRA A rated
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)– NRA A rated
Lindsey Graham (S.C.) – NRA A rated
Dean Heller (Nev.) – NRA A rated
John Hoeven (N.D.) – NRA A rated
Johnny Isakson (Ga.) – NRA A rated
Pat Toomey (Pa.) – NRA A rated
Roger Wicker (Miss.) – NRA A+ rated
13 of these Senators have NRA “A-ratings.”
Also, after this little fiasco, I will no longer buy into the "wasted vote" philosophy. We're told we must vote for a less desirable RINO candidat, ala McCain and Romney.
This philosophy is parroted whenever an election is lost. After all, if we vote for the candidate we really want, it is a wasted vote if that person can't possibly win. Why, don't you know, you'd just as well vote or the demo.
Well friends and neighbors, if I am voting for gun control, I'd rather KNOW that is what I'm getting up front and not be harpooned in the back. The RINOs don't care what we want. They think they have our vote no matter what. I'm opting out of that. As a wise man once said, 'There's not a dime's worth of difference'.
So there are no bans on CCW or OC in any local municipality in PA that I'm aware of. I'm not sure where you got that.
As true for Nebraska as it is for Pennsylvania.
As true for Nebraska as it is for Pennsylvania.
That's great, the difference is that if I had voted against Toomey I would have been putting a 100% anti-gun Senator in office and we would be discussing an outright ban instead of expanded background checks.
Both Senators have "A" ratings from the NRA. You might not like their position now, but guess what hindsight is 20/20.
You really can't be serious.
You don't know how the process works do you? The overwhelming majority of bills that get sent to the floor, fail to become law.
I don't recall anyone saying obamacare wasn't going to pass. In fact I remember being quite convinced of the opposite.
There is plenty of opportunity for other filibusters.
Of course, all of this ignores the fact that no one hear has read the bill, nor can point to what they object to.
My points that you fail to grasp.
Castle doctrine, preemption, and all those grandstanding made in state firearm laws don't mean shit.
If the RINOS didn't move this bill forward, this gun control issue would be completely dead right now. It would have failed. The panic buying would have subsided.
Instead we now have a bill that an AWB ban can be amended to. Just like in 2004. Except this time, the congress is more liberal and the president is a communist.
VooDoo6Actual
04-11-13, 21:07
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17709187-newtown-passion-moves-senate-vote-on-guns?lite
Well friends and neighbors, if I am voting for gun control, I'd rather KNOW that is what I'm getting up front and not be harpooned in the back. The RINOs don't care what we want. They think they have our vote no matter what. I'm opting out of that. As a wise man once said, 'There's not a dime's worth of difference'.
Spot on.
Similarly reminiscent of the Obamacare tactics. We must pass this even though we have not read it.
I feel like I'm getting sold a Spam sandwich that has shit in it.
Something's up that's not on the level my Spidey senses tell me.
If it smells like shit...
It is usually not spam.
You do not have more gun owners per capita than the western states.
Pennsylvania is actually a pretty heavily armed state.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/28/states-with-the-most-guns.html
This info is a little old, but PA has a higher rate of gun ownership than Texas, Nebraska, Arizona, and many other states. Get your facts straight next time. ����
Pat Toomey is a great senator. This bill is really pretty mild. So lets all take a deep breath and just relax.
brushy bill
04-11-13, 21:34
Pat Toomey is a great senator. This bill is really pretty mild. So lets all take a deep breath and just relax.
Yeah...you're right. What's a little more freedom down the toilet. Relax and it won't hurt as bad...
Won't hurt so bad... As they lube you up. Oh no...
mikelowrey
04-11-13, 21:38
Tinfoil?
Yeah...you're right. What's a little more freedom down the toilet. Relax and it won't hurt as bad...
This bill is nothing. It is a fly on the elephant. I do agree that it will do nothing to stop mass shootings.
The laws in California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, and Connecticut are far worse.
I guarantee that there will be no assault weapons ban passed.
I know you feel strongly about this. But are you sure in a few years...
VooDoo6Actual
04-11-13, 21:49
This bill is nothing. It is a fly on the elephant. I do agree that it will do nothing to stop mass shootings.
The laws in California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, and Connecticut are far worse.
I guarantee that there will be no assault weapons ban passed.
Your going to have a extremely difficult time convincing me because you say so especially w/ people making ROL w/ statements like this.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/3/congresswoman-admits-assault-weapons-ban-is-just-the-beginning.aspx
I know you feel strongly about this. But are you sure in a few years...
Republicans control congress. The dems are screwing up our economy so bad that that 2014 will be a bloodbath for them. We are safe, for now.
Demographics favor the demo communists in the long run. The sheep breed quickly. Stock up boys.
brushy bill
04-11-13, 21:52
Your going to have a extremely difficult time convincing me because you say so especially w/ people making ROL w/ statements like this.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/3/congresswoman-admits-assault-weapons-ban-is-just-the-beginning.aspx
Indeed...but this is when the "tinfoil accusser crowd" will claim that she is not a "player", has no real power, can't introduce legislation or introduce policy and is no threat, so your concerns are unwarranted.
brushy bill
04-11-13, 21:54
The laws in California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, and Connecticut are far worse.
How does this make the current proposed legislation more palatable...'could be worse, so let's suck this up'?
DreadPirateMoyer
04-11-13, 21:56
Oh how smart you are.
First off, our state attorney general suited local cities into conforming to the state CCW laws. There are no bans on CCW or OC in any town/city in NE.
How is that castle doctrine working out when you get your gun confiscated, get fired from your job, have to get a lawyer, and have a $100K legal bill while under police investigation for a year and get smeared in the liberal newspaper. Castle doctrine does nothing to protect you from these things.
You shoot someone, you are still going down to the station and your life is still going to be ****ed.
You ****ing senator caused this mess that we are discussing in this thread. Both of mine voted to support the filibuster.
Your state voted for bam bam twice. If bam bam wasn't in power, we wouldn't be having this thread.
68 senators voted to move this forward. How do you think our chances are now that an AWB wont be attached to this? Feeling lucking now?
Remember, just like obamacare wasn't going to pass.
I am pretty smart. Thanks for noticing.
Your second point is off base. Castle doctrine does protect you 95% of the time because government attorneys can't press charges in the first place. No court case, no lawyer fees, no guns being confiscated during the non-existent investigation. It's already happened multiple times in the state, including Philadelphia. It's a great law. Maybe your state can someday progress to PA's level and have a castle law too.
The rest of what you said is just you being weirdly butthurt about PA/your initial comments being wrong. Whatever. PA's more pro-gun than where you live and you made a flub. It happens. Get over it.
And back to things that matter: how in the everliving hell did both of the Republicans from Arizona drop this bomb? I mean, McCain I can see. But the other guy?
Magic_Salad0892
04-11-13, 22:06
Look. When the bill comes out we can bitch. But right now, it looks like we gain some legitamate gains, for what they wanna do.
It specifically makes registration illegal, and doesn't really change the background check system in any way. From what they're telling us.
There's no enforcement method. There's no mag ban, no AWB, no mental health provisions, nothing. It pretty much just looks like private transfers with an insane amount of loopholes.
I must be retarded, because I don't see how this bill will help them in any way. If anything, it'll be a way for rightists to save face, and appeal to the general public, saying we did something, while at the same time getting some good provisions in there, like cross-state buying, and using CCPs to pass background checks in states that don't have that provision.
It's not "death by a thousand cuts" because they're not gaining a damned thing, and we are.
Magic_Salad0892
04-11-13, 22:07
I am pretty smart. Thanks for noticing.
Your second point is off base. Castle doctrine does protect you 95% of the time because government attorneys can't press charges in the first place. No court case, no lawyer fees, no guns being confiscated during the non-existent investigation. It's already happened multiple times in the state, including Philadelphia. It's a great law. Maybe your state can someday progress to PA's level and have a castle law too.
The rest of what you said is just you being weirdly butthurt about PA/your initial comments being wrong. Whatever. PA's more pro-gun than where you live and you made a flub. It happens. Get over it.
And back to things that matter: how in the everliving hell did both of the Republicans from Arizona drop this bomb? I mean, McCain I can see. But the other guy?
Castle Doctrine didn't help Mark Zimmerman. Just saying.
VooDoo6Actual
04-11-13, 22:21
Toomey's Bill
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/posted-full-text-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716249.html
Could be worse. Focusing on mental health & mental health records etc.
Your second point is off base. Castle doctrine does protect you 95% of the time because government attorneys can't press charges in the first place. No court case, no lawyer fees, no guns being confiscated during the non-existent investigation.
That isn't what I said.
I said the castle doctrine doesn't protect you from:
1. Getting fired from your job after a defensive shooting.
2. It doesn't protect you from getting smeared in the newspaper
3. It doesn't protect you from having your name come up in a google search about your shooting for the rest of your life.
4. Having your gun confiscated while under investigation. Notice I said investigation, not charged.
5. Getting your gun back after it was rolling around in a metal evidence locker at the station and now beat to shit.
6. Getting hauled off to the station for questioning
7. Spending the next year of your live under media and law enforcement scrutiny
8. Getting a lawyer involved after the shooting and having to pay him
Phillygunguy
04-12-13, 00:55
Toomey's Bill
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/posted-full-text-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716249.html
Could be worse. Focusing on mental health & mental health records etc.
What bothers me is Chucky Schumer has his grubby little hands in this shit, Toomey shouldn't be trying to appease his ass, rather there should be No debate on the second amendment just like no debate the right to free speech, freedom of religion or the right to vote.
Toomey's Bill
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/posted-full-text-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716249.html
Could be worse. Focusing on mental health & mental health records etc.
Some of it looks good. It includes increased reporting of those adjudicated mentally ill to the NICS, but it does not seem to fully articulate what types of mental health records will be disclosed to for the purpose determining who is and who is not a prohibited person. Unless I missed it.
Also this should be a dandy..
SEC. 142. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE.
(a) Establishment of Commission.-There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence (in this subtitle referred to as the "Commission") to study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence.
Also this should be a dandy..
SEC. 142. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE.
(a) Establishment of Commission.-There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence (in this subtitle referred to as the "Commission") to study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence.
This is a set up. Any time you have a commission set up in a law like this, the outcome is already predetermined.
--
This is a set up. Any time you have a commission set up in a law like this, the outcome is already predetermined.
--
The "Nature" of firearms seems pretty overt on their part :rolleyes:
Some of it looks good. It includes increased reporting of those adjudicated mentally ill to the NICS, but it does not seem to fully articulate what types of mental health records will be disclosed to for the purpose determining who is and who is not a prohibited person. Unless I missed it.
Also this should be a dandy..
SEC. 142. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE. (a) Establishment of Commission.-There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence (in this subtitle referred to as the "Commission") to study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence.
I wonder what reasoning they could have for putting something so seemingly harmless way down in section 142?
Where is the National Commission on GANG and Organized Crime Violence?
--------------
I think what a lot of people fail to realize is how some of these slimy NRA A rated Republicants are trying to pull the wool down over our eyes holding hands and making common sense compromises with Democrats. They know most people will support some sort of mental health regs because the system failed in Aurora and no telling where else. So they slip in the part that gives a gun owner only so long to report a gun theft? How moronic is such a bill?
What should scare the living hell out of all of you is how the game is shifting to not overtly take away your gun rights but shift the BLAME and SHAME of gun crimes (i.e. mass shootings specifically) to the law abiding gun owner!
There is already talk of mandatory gun insurance. Why not force you to up your homeowners to cover the potential crime that may be committed with your guns? What's the harm in that? We damn sure can't enforce existing laws and damn sure can't make penalties stiffer on criminals so why not?
VooDoo6Actual
04-12-13, 03:51
What bothers me is Chucky Schumer has his grubby little hands in this shit, Toomey shouldn't be trying to appease his ass, rather there should be No debate on the second amendment just like no debate the right to free speech, freedom of religion or the right to vote.
Yep indeed. I'm tracking 100%.
VooDoo6Actual
04-12-13, 03:53
Some of it looks good. It includes increased reporting of those adjudicated mentally ill to the NICS, but it does not seem to fully articulate what types of mental health records will be disclosed to for the purpose determining who is and who is not a prohibited person. Unless I missed it.
Also this should be a dandy..
Agreed.
BTW, your spot on about that dousey you quoted:
SEC. 142. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE.
(a) Establishment of Commission.-There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence (in this subtitle referred to as the "Commission") to study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence.
That will lead to special panels/psych evals w/ new definitions & threshold perimeters to fit their agenda of taking guns off the streets. Plus Polls/survey's that are total Bravo Sierra knowing it's how the question is asked/posed etc. Should be a real hoot.
BTW, I can also think of several places that would be more apropos topics/subjects to address preventing mass violence. I'm cogitating on if after they prey on the low fruit regarding Vets/PTSD/TBI et al etc. would they go after LEO's that have PTSD et al. as well or will larger Metro departments internally cull their hurd regarding any Peace Officer w/ "a turd in his/her jacket" or MMPI2 test (god I hate those), Counseling, meds similarly ? Hard to imagine they would not.
Also per DiFi we're all mentally and in collusion with terrorists for standing against gun control. I forgot sites like this are a hub of terrorist activity in her eyes. Bitch is crazy
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/11/Sen-Feinstein-Private-Gun-Sales-Play-Into-Terrorists-Hands
Agreed.
BTW, your spot on about that dousey you quoted:
SEC. 142. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE.
(a) Establishment of Commission.-There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence (in this subtitle referred to as the "Commission") to study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence.
That will lead to special panels/psych evals w/ new definitions & threshold perimeters to fit their agenda of taking guns off the streets. Plus Polls/survey's that are total Bravo Sierra knowing it's how the question is asked/posed etc. Should be a real hoot.
BTW, I can also think of several places that would be more apropos topics/subjects to address preventing mass violence. I'm cogitating on if after they prey on the low fruit regarding Vets/PTSD/TBI et al etc. would they go after LEO's that have PTSD et al. as well or will larger Metro departments internally cull their hurd regarding any Peace Officer w/ "a turd in his/her jacket" or MMPI2 test (god I hate those), Counseling, meds similarly ? Hard to imagine they would not.
Reading a little farther down, we find that it discribes how this panel is to be made up 12 people, 6 democrats, 6 republicans with a democrat as the chairman of the commission, and a republican as vice chairman, with at least one person with expertise by both experience and training in
mental health,
mass media
firearms
school saftey..
Also note how this panel is to submit a interm report to congess and the president with the commission's reccommendations.. within 3 months of their first meeting.And shall submit a final report with the commission's "comprehensive report of findings and conclusions of the commission together with recommendations of the commission" to congress and the president within 6 months...Boys what this tells me is that sooner or later they're going to reccommend another AWB or mag ban or both... Since this bill already has the blessing of both Obama and Bloomberg, it's likely to pass.. this is how I see our freedoms being eroded, by the quarterly meetings of a commission... Frankly, if any of you want anything, pistols, rifles etc, I think I'd scrape up the money and buy it now, before this passes...
Crow Hunter
04-12-13, 09:46
Caught part of a liberal radio program on my way back to the house this morning.
They were just gushing about how great a deal it was and how there was finally something being done about gun violence and now we could move on to more important issues like immigration reform and expanding social security.
Is that such a bad thing, considering the goodies we got in the deal?
(Assuming the summary isn't leaving out important facts)
Caught part of a liberal radio program on my way back to the house this morning.
They were just gushing about how great a deal it was and how there was finally something being done about gun violence and now we could move on to more important issues like immigration reform and expanding social security.
Is that such a bad thing, considering the goodies we got in the deal?
(Assuming the summary isn't leaving out important facts)
Well, considering how the "commission" is going to be made up, consider what could happen if 3 or more RINOS made up the republican half..Me? I'm still not sold, I think this is a bad thing, that has the possibiltys of becoming worse. Let's say the 2014 midterms don't go that well for Republicans, and they just barely hang on in the house,and lose seats in the senate, (I know, pure speculation) and the commission comes back and recommends more gun control... (which sooner or later they're going to)what do you think will happen as a result? This just makes things much more convenient...
Magic_Salad0892
04-12-13, 12:39
I would agree that the bill is decent if they'd pull out that damn commission clause.
Sorry, but disarming US citizens precede Obama and it WOULD be happening if all but maybe Ron Paul were president.
The people you SEE are NOT the power SOURCE. Why people cannot get this thru their skulls I will never know. Tin Foil/Sanguinoid/paranoid. Who gives a shit? Open your ears, eyes, minds and THINK, for crying out loud.
Any rate, here is what happened to "swing" a few "conservatives" (the word has no real meaning). You support the IDEALS of the Founders or you don't. Period. The Left-Right, Conservative/Neoconservate-Moderate/Liberal and Dem-GOP paradigm just HAS to be seen for what it is. Right?
Right?
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Senator_Mark_Kirk%3A_Booze_and_Boat_Parties_Smoothed_BiPartisan_Gun_Deal/25292/0/0/0/Y/M.html
Just sit back and breathe.
Then think of what ice t said long ago.
Money controls the world and that's it. An once you got it, then you can talk shit.
POWER
Just sit back and breathe.
Then think of what ice t said long ago.
Money controls the world and that's it. An once you got it, then you can talk shit.
POWER
You got it.
No I don't.
I forgot to add..
BLOOMBERG
Belmont31R
04-12-13, 22:03
Did you all hear about Reid thanking McStain for ending Rand's chances of a fillibuster?
What are you doing tonight? Partying on a yacht worth millions?
VooDoo6Actual
04-12-13, 22:04
Reading a little farther down, we find that it discribes how this panel is to be made up 12 people, 6 democrats, 6 republicans with a democrat as the chairman of the commission, and a republican as vice chairman, with at least one person with expertise by both experience and training in
mental health,
mass media
firearms
school saftey..
Also note how this panel is to submit a interm report to congess and the president with the commission's reccommendations.. within 3 months of their first meeting.And shall submit a final report with the commission's "comprehensive report of findings and conclusions of the commission together with recommendations of the commission" to congress and the president within 6 months...Boys what this tells me is that sooner or later they're going to reccommend another AWB or mag ban or both... Since this bill already has the blessing of both Obama and Bloomberg, it's likely to pass.. this is how I see our freedoms being eroded, by the quarterly meetings of a commission... Frankly, if any of you want anything, pistols, rifles etc, I think I'd scrape up the money and buy it now, before this passes...
Here's something that was an interesting read Ralph for your perusal.
The Coming Federal Gun Registry
BY HERSCHEL SMITH
The Toomey (R) – Manchin (D) deal is said to involve gives and takeaways to gun owner rights. But David Addington at Heritage has written a smart analysis of at least one peril that America faces with the plan.
The STM bill fuzzes up the law prohibiting a federal gun registry. First, the legislation says that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to allow establishment of a federal firearms registry. In addition, it says that the Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize records of firearms acquisition and disposition maintained by licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers, and by buyers and sellers at gun shows (and makes it a crime for him to do so).
But then, the STM bill takes those protections away by using the all-powerful word “notwithstanding”—”notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.” The courts may construe the “notwithstanding” to allow Attorney General Eric Holder to issue regulations that could begin to create a federal registry of firearms, because the law says he can implement the subsection without regard to the protections against a registry elsewhere in the legislation.
The courts view the word “notwithstanding” as very powerful. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in 1989 in Crowley Caribbean Transport v. U.S. in reference to the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter” that “a clearer statement of intent is difficult to imagine” to push aside other laws. The same court indicated in 1991 in Liberty Maritime Corporation v. U.S. that a grant of authority to a department head to be exercised “notwithstanding” any other law generally grants the broadest possible discretion to the department head. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1992 in Conoco, Inc. v. Skinner took a somewhat different approach, in which the judges themselves divine the congressional intent whether to let the word “notwithstanding” in a law override other conflicting provisions of the same law.
I said earlier in the thread and I'll say it again. We really need to focus on getting a pro-2A congress critter to add a provision repealing the Hughes Amendment. If nothing else it will kill the bill. If it passes we get new transferable MGs.
Did you all hear about Reid thanking McStain for ending Rand's chances of a fillibuster?
What are you doing tonight? Partying on a yacht worth millions?
Fvck him.
Belmont31R
04-12-13, 23:12
I said earlier in the thread and I'll say it again. We really need to focus on getting a pro-2A congress critter to add a provision repealing the Hughes Amendment. If nothing else it will kill the bill. If it passes we get new transferable MGs.
Repeal the NFA and the 68 GCA.
What bothers me is Chucky Schumer has his grubby little hands in this shit, Toomey shouldn't be trying to appease his ass, rather there should be No debate on the second amendment just like no debate the right to free speech, freedom of religion or the right to vote.
+1
You don't debate or negotiate with people who have declared they want to undermine your rights, ridicule your fascination with rights and label you potential terrorist for exercising and defending your rights. You punch them in the face until they drop ( figuratively).
Repeal the NFA and the 68 GCA.
Yes! That is the only discussion we should engage in concerning gun laws: getting rid of them.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17709187-newtown-passion-moves-senate-vote-on-guns?lite
This was real special. I also learned from National Association for Gun Rights that the following senators helped stop the boycott. Notice the A ratings from NRA. I'm a Benefactor member, so not 'anti-NRA' by any stretch, but if "we" are promoting their ilk, what are "we" thinking and why am I bothering?
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) – NRA A rated
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) – NRA A rated
Richard Burr (N.C.) – NRA A rated
Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) – NRA A rated
Tom Coburn (Okla.) – NRA A rated
Bob Corker (Tenn.) – NRA A rated
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)– NRA A rated
Lindsey Graham (S.C.) – NRA A rated
Dean Heller (Nev.) – NRA A rated
John Hoeven (N.D.) – NRA A rated
Johnny Isakson (Ga.) – NRA A rated
Pat Toomey (Pa.) – NRA A rated
Roger Wicker (Miss.) – NRA A+ rated
13 of these Senators have NRA “A-ratings.”
Also, after this little fiasco, I will no longer buy into the "wasted vote" philosophy. We're told we must vote for a less desirable RINO candidat, ala McCain and Romney.
This philosophy is parroted whenever an election is lost. After all, if we vote for the candidate we really want, it is a wasted vote if that person can't possibly win. Why, don't you know, you'd just as well vote or the demo.
Well friends and neighbors, if I am voting for gun control, I'd rather KNOW that is what I'm getting up front and not be harpooned in the back. The RINOs don't care what we want. They think they have our vote no matter what. I'm opting out of that. As a wise man once said, 'There's not a dime's worth of difference'.
Thanks for waking up, my friend! The sun is a little bright but you'll adjust and, more importantly, you'll not be able to stand the dark,
Wonder who's rope Wicker was sucking to get his A+ NRA rating?
platoonDaddy
04-13-13, 14:23
looks like the CA bitch sneaked in her AWB proposal for consideration to tommey-manchin (at least that is the way I am reading the following)
Following link and scroll down to 711. S.ADMT
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/d?d113:700:./list/bss/d113SP.lst:[[o]]&items=100&
711. S.AMDT.711 to S.649 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 4/11/2013) Cosponsors (22)
Latest Major Action: 4/11/2013 Senate amendment submitted
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:711:./list/bss/d113SP.lst::
Link to her AWB from the above link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r113:FLD001:S02599
Phillygunguy
04-13-13, 14:29
looks like the CA bitch sneaked in her AWB proposal for consideration to tommey-manchin (at least that is the way I am reading the following)
Following link and scroll down to 711. S.ADMT
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/d?d113:700:./list/bss/d113SP.lst:[[o]]&items=100&
711. S.AMDT.711 to S.649 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 4/11/2013) Cosponsors (22)
Latest Major Action: 4/11/2013 Senate amendment submitted
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:711:./list/bss/d113SP.lst::
Link to her AWB from the above link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r113:FLD001:S02599
when is this old cunt going to drop dead already?
I hope you don't think this is going to end when she does. She will be a martyr and someone else will take up her mantle. It's like trying to defeat a hydra Nd the heads just keep growing back and we have no fire to cauterize the wounds.
Crow Hunter
04-13-13, 18:06
It was added 4 times.:eek::suicide2:
Amendments 711, 712, 713, 714
What ass hats.
Fineswine 2x
Leahy and Lautenberg once each.
These people make me sick.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-13-13, 20:20
Four times to make people vote against an AWB four times?
Don't they realize they need everything registered before they go after the guns.
Put the Hughes retraction in there, that way the can actually vote against real machine guns.
Mauser KAR98K
04-13-13, 21:40
NRA is dropping the ball on this! Was tooling around Youtube looking at STG44 vids and had an/commercial play about the new "reform" and for people to vote for it. It claimed the false 90% that America wants this.
Thoughts? I have to go back and reread the bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/
platoonDaddy
04-14-13, 07:25
Thoughts? I have to go back and reread the bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/
Interesting twist:
The proposal essentially grants states "reciprocity" regarding concealed carry provisions.
In other words, the provision would grant gun owners the right to obtain a firearm and a concealed-carry permit in their home state, then use the permit to carry and conceal the firearm in another state.
Though many states have laws on buying firearms and concealed-carry permits, the federal provision, if adopted, could trump state laws.
Phillygunguy
04-14-13, 08:15
NRA is dropping the ball on this! Was tooling around Youtube looking at STG44 vids and had an/commercial play about the new "reform" and for people to vote for it. It claimed the false 90% that America wants this.
I saw that commercial disgusting, I'm so sick of this piece of shit in the WH and all politicians who won't stand up and make deals with him
Phillygunguy
04-14-13, 08:20
You got it.
And our votes don't mean shit. It's sad we have lived long enough to see the final phase of Americas' destruction once the 2A is gone we loose it all, actually we lost it all a while ago this is just the nail in the coffin
Gutshot John
04-14-13, 09:21
looks like the CA bitch sneaked in her AWB proposal for consideration to tommey-manchin (at least that is the way I am reading the following)
Following link and scroll down to 711. S.ADMT
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/d?d113:700:./list/bss/d113SP.lst:[[o]]&items=100&
711. S.AMDT.711 to S.649 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 4/11/2013) Cosponsors (22)
Latest Major Action: 4/11/2013 Senate amendment submitted
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:711:./list/bss/d113SP.lst::
Link to her AWB from the above link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r113:FLD001:S02599
No she can't just sneak it in. It has to be voted into the legislation as an amendment.
Even if it is voted in (it won't be with only 22 cosponsors)...Problem solved.
It's a poison pill. Democrats in red states are going to run like hell, so will all the Republicans. Including the two sponsors who will have to vote against their own bill.
Toomey legislation dies, Democrats take the blame. Please let Feinstein and the rest of the Democrats be that stupid.
boggyboy72
04-14-13, 10:50
No she can't just sneak it in. It has to be voted into the legislation as an amendment.
Even if it is voted in (it won't be with only 22 cosponsors)...Problem solved.
It's a poison pill. Democrats in red states are going to run like hell, so will all the Republicans. Including the two sponsors who will have to vote against their own bill.
Toomey legislation dies, Democrats take the blame. Please let Feinstein and the rest of the Democrats be that stupid.
Saw this today.Just a little humor.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/478679
Toomey and Manchin made their deal and a lot of people were mad,but maybe they ARE trying to play both sides.
Pols are Pols no matter what Party and will cover their ass before anything else.
If they don't even let it come to the floor they look like dicks,so it gets to come only so far then it dies and at least they tried.
Traveshamockery
04-14-13, 11:31
NRA is dropping the ball on this! Was tooling around Youtube looking at STG44 vids and had an/commercial play about the new "reform" and for people to vote for it. It claimed the false 90% that America wants this.
I think you're mistaking the Lindsey Graham bill, which NRA supports, with the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin bill, which they have aggressively and explicitly opposed.
Get your facts straight, people.
Mauser KAR98K
04-14-13, 22:14
I think you're mistaking the Lindsey Graham bill, which NRA supports, with the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin bill, which they have aggressively and explicitly opposed.
Get your facts straight, people.
No, I was talking about the Toomey bill. The MSM and the Libs are tooling up to get it passed, even with the lies.
Traveshamockery
04-14-13, 22:55
No, I was talking about the Toomey bill. The MSM and the Libs are tooling up to get it passed, even with the lies.
I thought you were saying the NRA was running ads on YouTube in support of the bill. I must have misunderstood.
D. Christopher
04-14-13, 23:08
Here are some interesting details and perspective from someone who actually knows what is in the Manchin-Toomey bill. It's worth a listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9UMox1WoTw
I don't understand, why **** does the right not do the same thing? We need people in congress on our side that are Pro 2A fanatics and try to pigeon hole correspondingly pro-2A bills every chance they get.
I should run for political office.
No she can't just sneak it in. It has to be voted into the legislation as an amendment.
Even if it is voted in (it won't be with only 22 cosponsors)...Problem solved.
It's a poison pill. Democrats in red states are going to run like hell, so will all the Republicans. Including the two sponsors who will have to vote against their own bill.
Toomey legislation dies, Democrats take the blame. Please let Feinstein and the rest of the Democrats be that stupid.
Here are some interesting details and perspective from someone who actually knows what is in the Manchin-Toomey bill. It's worth a listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9UMox1WoTw
Interesting is a good word. Just what sort of magical easter eggs are supposed to be in this wonderful bill which he helped craft? Sorry but I'm not seeing any. As its been said, there is nothing to stop BATFE or anyone else from making hand copies. It will still gut B/S/T sub forums on ever message board. The mental health provisions are absymal.
Now for my personal bitch.
I don't think anyone has thought of this, but what about kids like my son. He is a member of the Scholastic Shooting Sports Foundation's Scholastic Clays program. Right now he rents his shotgun every week. So if this bill passes, what happens to him? Will he have to go through an NCIC check every week? Is it even legal at that point to transfer his rental gun to him, a minor, every week? What if it has to be transferred to me and then I hand it off to him. Am I going to going to be guilty of a felony if I do that? If this isn't fixed my son and all of his peers across the country are going to be screwed.
Mauser KAR98K
04-15-13, 00:53
I thought you were saying the NRA was running ads on YouTube in support of the bill. I must have misunderstood.
No sir. I should have been a bit clearer. The NRA is dropping the ball on their advertising tactics and letting gun-grabbers get their crap posted on Youtube, which is probably seen more by people than regular TV.
Here are some interesting details and perspective from someone who actually knows what is in the Manchin-Toomey bill. It's worth a listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9UMox1WoTw
Like I said before, I want to see the ACTUAL bill, not just someone's idea of what it says. I do not trust any of them. Only when I get to read the bill in it's entirety will I make a decision on how I feel about it. :mad:
What a horses ass...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/15/kerry-foreign-students-scared-of-guns-in-u-s/
(CNN) – Students in other countries assessing where to study abroad are increasingly scared of coming to the United States because of gun violence, the nation's top diplomat said Monday.
Speaking with CNN foreign affairs correspondent Jill Dougherty in Tokyo, Secretary of State John Kerry said he'd discussed the situation with officials there who said students felt unsafe in the United States.
"We had an interesting discussion about why fewer students are coming to, particularly from Japan, to study in the United States, and one of the responses I got from our officials from conversations with parents here is that they're actually scared. They think they're not safe in the United States and so they don't come," Kerry said.
He noted Japan's restrictive gun laws – which prevent private ownership of nearly all firearms, including handguns – and said the country was safer "where people are not running around with guns."
In 2011, Japan sent 21,290 students to study in the United States, making it the seventh largest country of origin for international scholars. That was down 14% from the previous year, according to numbers from the Institute of International Education.
Figures have shown international study is down markedly among Japanese students to all destinations, including the United States. Experts have attributed the decline to Japan's low birthrate, the expense of foreign study in a poor economy, and a desire among Japanese young people to remain at home rather than venture to other countries.
Unlike the United States, the right to private gun ownership in Japan is not guaranteed in law. Individuals wishing to possess any firearm must obtain a license and demonstrate a reason for owning the gun.
Out of a total 582 homicides in Japan in 2008, 11 were by guns.
Crow Hunter
04-15-13, 16:42
What a horses ass...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/15/kerry-foreign-students-scared-of-guns-in-u-s/
I would go moron/buffoon.
Horse's ass implies that he is smart enough to understand what he is talking about.
NSSF opposes the Toomey Manchin business
http://www.nssf.org/share/blastLinks/ActionAlerts/2013/AA041513.htm
---
What a horses ass...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/15/kerry-foreign-students-scared-of-guns-in-u-s/
What's "funny" is that my wife is from Japan, and she is nervous about going to Japan! Too many crazies pushing people in front of trains, going on knife rampages, and stuff like that. She reads Japanese newspapers online and can get scared to death of going back. (It has never stopped her from actually going though).
--
boggyboy72
04-15-13, 17:45
I'm not so sure about the Japanese being scared to come here because of guns.
I have an Uncle that retired from the Honda plant in Marysville,OH.
He told me that whenever the VIP's came from Japan they were very interested in guns and always up for a trip to the range after business was done.
But it could be that guns are something They like to try here,but wouldn't want at home.
Maybe someone more well traveled could comment on the views of the average Japanese citizen on guns.
So Kerry has decided to semi-bitchslap us all. In another country.
Wow...
Crow Hunter
04-15-13, 17:55
I'm not so sure about the Japanese being scared to come here because of guns.
I have an Uncle that retired from the Honda plant in Marysville,OH.
He told me that whenever the VIP's came from Japan they were very interested in guns and always up for a trip to the range after business was done.
But it could be that guns are something They like to try here,but wouldn't want at home.
Maybe someone more well traveled could comment on the views of the average Japanese citizen on guns.
I used to work for a Denso subsidiary. Every Japanese guy to a man loved to go shooting guns and mowing yards and blondes with big titties. (Neither of which most could do in their home country)
If you ever needed a shooting partner or needed your yard mowed or needed someone to buy drinks at the titty bar, one of the Japanese guys was always willing to help.
I used to work for a German company. All our German visitors wanted to go shooting.
We have guys over from Denmark at my current job when we are doing are CE certifications. They ALWAYS want to go shoot guns and go fishing on the Mississippi.
I don't believe that any of them are scared of the US because of guns. Inner city thugs maybe, and by extension black people:(, but not guns in my experience.
I'm not so sure about the Japanese being scared to come here because of guns.
I have an Uncle that retired from the Honda plant in Marysville,OH.
He told me that whenever the VIP's came from Japan they were very interested in guns and always up for a trip to the range after business was done.
But it could be that guns are something They like to try here,but wouldn't want at home.
Maybe someone more well traveled could comment on the views of the average Japanese citizen on guns.
I am not an expert. I have been there 6 times (2-3 weeks each) since 2000 and my wife is from Japan.
The average Japanese citizen probably has not really thought about firearms, since firearms are basically Verboten except for shotguns, as I understand it, and shotguns are not easy to get a permit for. So they don't have the history and culture of having firearms. I would be pretty sure they find our culture of being armed, strange.
The Yakuza and other criminals are all armed, of course.
However, as a counterpoint, they are VERY big into airsoft and you find large airsoft only stores in the big cities with ALL sorts of stuff -- guns, equipment, etc. And they have a BUNCH of magazines (the paper kind) devoted to weapons and firearms and airsoft.
I looked in some magazines and saw articles and pictures of LAV from one of his US training classes, as well as Costa and Haley from their Magpul days. The LAV class was at the gun range used for classes by everyone in Arizona down close to Tucson, where I had been to a class (non LAV) and it was interesting to see some of the local AZ LEOs who attend and sponsor these classes in these pictures.
My wife has sent pictures of me with rifles and stuff to her mom and sisters through videoconferencing. They asked if they were real but did not say much or were not too concerned.
So, you have this dichotomy of worship of the gun as a forbidden fruit, and expressed through airsoft, with the opposite abhorrence based on ignorance and lack of experience and familiarity.
(Kind of like what liberal people here think of guns, without the political overtones -- more matter of fact).
That is how I see it as someone who has been there a bunch of times. I wear gun shirts around when I am over there (Daniel Defence, Sig, etc) and have never attracted attention with them
--
I used to work for a Denso subsidiary. Every Japanese guy to a man loved to go shooting guns and mowing yards and blondes with big titties. (Neither of which most could do in their home country)
If you ever needed a shooting partner or needed your yard mowed or needed someone to buy drinks at the titty bar, one of the Japanese guys was always willing to help.
I used to work for a German company. All our German visitors wanted to go shooting.
We have guys over from Denmark at my current job when we are doing are CE certifications. They ALWAYS want to go shoot guns and go fishing on the Mississippi.
I don't believe that any of them are scared of the US because of guns. Inner city thugs maybe, and by extension black people:(, but not guns in my experience.
This mirrors my experiences. I worked for a company that had a large UK customer (which they later bought) and there were often UK folks coming over. They all wanted to go shooting when they came.
Same for my German friends who were here. And we've also taken guys from other countries where I forget the details -- back in the 90s -- and they all wanted to do it.
----
What a horses ass...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/15/kerry-foreign-students-scared-of-guns-in-u-s/
While being scared of guns, and fear of personal saftey are convenient excuses for Kerry to spread his master's lies overseas..I think the real reason that more Japanese students aren't coming over, might have something to do with the fact the country's debt is 265% of it GDP...In other words, they probably can't afford it...Money wise, Japan is a country like the U.S., that heated up the credit card one too many times...And like the U.S., they're going to pay dearly for it....
Is anybody watching CSPAN2? The shit I'm hearing is really starting to piss me off. Toomey has gone off the deepend. I think he really belives that he is pro2A! He is fighting for YOUR rights.
If this kind of thinking is fighting for my rights, we are truly doomed...
Please YouTube or watch this.
It is truly scary...
As regrettable as the events in Boston today are I hope they serve as a reminder to people that the world is a dangerous place and that further restriction of or 2A rights is beyond asinine for that reason alone.
If the republicans would of gotten 61 votes to uphold the filibuster all this issue would be dead right now. Our side would have prevailed. The panic would have been over and stuff would be coming back in stock.
Instead, we now have a billing moving through congress that can have an AWB amended to it. This is what they really want. ShitStain and the other rinos really want an AWB to stick it to the conservatives.
EVERYONE, keep contacting them here. http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-l...your-reps.aspx Hopefully we can win this battle and it will buy us some time until we *WILL* vote the ones who opposed us out of office.
montanadave
04-17-13, 11:59
CW says this deal is dead in the water.
Senators from vulnerable states have seen the writing on the wall (i.e. there is ZERO chance of any gun-control legislation advancing in the House) and they see absolutely no reason to expose themselves to the inevitable onslaught from gun-rights groups in what would be nothing more than a pyrrhic victory.
montanadave
04-17-13, 15:12
Senate voting on Manchin-Toomey amendment now.
Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) both vote no.
Call off the dogs and piss on the fire. This one's over.
wetidlerjr
04-17-13, 15:30
Just in. The amendment failed by a vote of 54 to 46
Is there a link?
Breaking on cnn.com
Breaking on cnn.com
I saw it too, but nay-sayers want links.
Toomey-Manchin Amendment definitely died. There are 7 other amendments to vote on but theory is since T-M died the whole bill is doomed.
I saw it too, but nay-sayers want links.
Don't know if you have to be a subscriber:
http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-senate-debates-gun-measures
Toomey-Manchin Amendment definitely died. There are 7 other amendments to vote on but theory is since T-M died the whole bill is doomed.
I hope so.
To hell with McCain and the other two GOPers that voted in favor of it.
That's still too close of a vote for me. Obama has already started campaigning for 2014.
If anyone sits home and doesn't vote against these people in 2014 we are screwed.
wetidlerjr
04-17-13, 17:35
That's still too close of a vote for me. Obama has already started campaigning for 2014.
If anyone sits home and doesn't vote against these people in 2014 we are screwed.
I just heard the POTUS was angry about all the failed votes (in his view) today.
Well, too bad.
Moose-Knuckle
04-17-13, 18:04
To hell with McCain and the other two GOPers that voted in favor of it.
Agreed, they just lost their 2014 re-election bid.
gunrunner505
04-17-13, 19:14
I just heard the POTUS was angry about all the failed votes (in his view) today.
Well, too bad.
I read an article on Fox where Mr. Obama said the gun lobby and it's allies willfully lied about the bill and the senators were threatend and intimidated.
Now, for Obama to accuse anyone of lying is quite a reach. And if you want to accuse the gun owners of this country of threatening and intimidating senators, I'll admit to that. Only it wasn't a threat. My reps were flat out told, if you support this we'll throw your ass out. The senate is in self preservation mode.
I do not believe Mr. Obama carries the burden of truth so he can eat a bag too. He's a petulent little child. He should hold his breath until he gets his way....
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.