View Full Version : *LEGISLATION STUFF HERE* : NRA-ILA Urgent Action Needed Link to Contact Your Senators
Just received this NRA-ILA Urgent Action Needed link in an e-mail from the NRA and thought I would pass it along. Very easy to contact your state senators with your thoughts about the wolves being at the door, and the sheep wanting to disarm us.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/your-action-is-needed-now
Eternal vigilance is most tiring
I wrote and called already. Let every Liberty lover you know that now is the time to tell them we are tired of our Government's continued blame on guns.
Fight the damned terrorists and shut up about firearms. They could care less about those who died, their concern is power and money and this is all about funneling money into their re-election coffers from their friends on the left.
That they are more concerned with guns than fighting the enemy should utterly piss you all off.
I wrote a pretty lengthy email.
SomeOtherGuy
06-15-16, 22:40
Message sent, and form link sent to pro-RKBA friends.
This stuff gets old, but contacting the legislators each and every time there's something about to happen in Congress does seem to be working so far.
My senators to vote down a ban, is like asking an ISIS member to accept Jesus as his savior.
Eurodriver
06-16-16, 06:37
My senators to vote down a ban, is like asking an ISIS member to accept Jesus as his savior.
Perhaps we need to do something other than asking politely.
Straight Shooter
06-16-16, 06:58
Over the years, I have written SO MANY letters, then later on emails to elected officails I couldn't count them if I tried.
My feeling now is this- if they were pro-gun when elected, they'll be pro-gun now. If not...no amount of email/letters will change their minds and most of the time they never get them anyway, from what Ive been told several years ago.
Doesn't hurt to do it, at all.
FYI- Back in the eighties when ALGORE was a TN Senator, I wrote ole boy a letter on a gun issue coming up for a vote in the Senate..got back a hellava pro-gun response. Got to thinkin about it, sat down, and using my same name and address...wrote another letter to dipstick that was anti-gun and asking him to vote FOR it. Got back a hellava anti-gun letter. I pegged that assclown then & there for what he was. Kept those letters and showed them around for many years. Wish I still had them.
Straight Shooter
06-16-16, 07:00
Perhaps we need to do something other than asking politely.
I have NEVER SEEN a gunowner that was healthy, fit & intelligent propose doing anything else.
Eurodriver
06-16-16, 07:05
I have NEVER SEEN a gunowner that was healthy, fit & intelligent propose doing anything else.
Neither have I, unfortunately.
Real talk - this afternoon in DC a group of otherwise upstanding, honorable, freedom loving Americans could take matters into their own hands and before the media had reporters on the scene there would be M4C members denouncing them as wackos and jerkoff nutcases.
Everyone wanna quote Charlton Heston, but don't nobody wanna actually have cold dead hands.
ETA: I realize this might be perceived as CoC noncompliance, but I'm not advocating anything; I'm simply making an observation.
Neither have I, unfortunately.
Real talk - this afternoon in DC a group of otherwise upstanding, honorable, freedom loving Americans could take matters into their own hands and before the media had reporters on the scene there would be M4C members denouncing them as wackos and jerkoff nutcases.
Everyone wanna quote Charlton Heston, but don't nobody wanna actually have cold dead hands.
ETA: I realize this might be perceived as CoC noncompliance, but I'm not advocating anything; I'm simply making an observation.
Truth. That is where social engineering has worked ohh so well. Sadly. I too am not advocating the use of force, but what the Sons of Liberty accomplished then, could never be reiterated in our age and current climate.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-16-16, 08:39
Neither have I, unfortunately.
Real talk - this afternoon in DC a group of otherwise upstanding, honorable, freedom loving Americans could take matters into their own hands and before the media had reporters on the scene there would be M4C members denouncing them as wackos and jerkoff nutcases.
Everyone wanna quote Charlton Heston, but don't nobody wanna actually have cold dead hands.
ETA: I realize this might be perceived as CoC noncompliance, but I'm not advocating anything; I'm simply making an observation.
Well said and 100% true. Everyone loves to talk big but as soon as anyone does anything they get deemed nut jobs, fuds, wanna bees, etc, etc etc. The media will say they are crazy, and the people here who normally never believe the MSM will believe everything said and portrayed of said freedom wanting individuals. Our founding fathers would have said eff the voting method a long time ago.
Sent yesterday. Of the 3, two of my "representatives" and actually writing and supporting gun control bills.
Just heard on the radio the Republicans have caved to the Democrat filibuster.
Our given rights are now up for vote.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-16-16, 11:35
When was the last GOP filibuster that got us anything, in under 24 hours?
People wonder why we hate Washington.
If the vote leads to any new gun control this country is just gone. Republicans control Congress, but they are lame duck spineless bitches. I'm so sick of the federal government, it needs to be dismantled and only about 1% of it left intact.
I'm disgusted with our state of affairs. It's pathetic what this country has become...
If the vote leads to any new gun control this country is just gone. Republicans control Congress, but they are lame duck spineless bitches. I'm so sick of the federal government, it needs to be dismantled and only about 1% of it left intact.
I'm disgusted with our state of affairs. It's pathetic what this country has become...
I could not agree with this more.
I agree. Horrible. Almost hopeless.
If you haven't, I would be digging deep to buy all the 30 round mags you can. May not need one now but I don't suppose they will survive this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
06-16-16, 13:17
Well said and 100% true. Everyone loves to talk big but as soon as anyone does anything they get deemed nut jobs, fuds, wanna bees, etc, etc etc. The media will say they are crazy, and the people here who normally never believe the MSM will believe everything said and portrayed of said freedom wanting individuals. Our founding fathers would have said eff the voting method a long time ago.
That didn't take long.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?185244-Labour-MP-Assassinated
The post must have been edited but someone being murdered is not okay, no matter who it is.
If you haven't, I would be digging deep to buy all the 30 round mags you can. May not need one now but I don't suppose they will survive this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you haven't been buying mags and ammo for a while you haven't been paying attention.
Eurodriver
06-16-16, 14:56
The post must have been edited but someone being murdered is not okay, no matter who it is.
The traitors you are up against do not agree with this.
And that's why they will win.
Outlander Systems
06-16-16, 15:03
They don't value us "little people."
The traitors you are up against do not agree with this.
And that's why they will win.
Dist. Expert 26
06-16-16, 15:16
I wrote my Congressmen and Senators, but who really thinks the Republicans are going to pass anything? They want to stay in office, and so do the Dems in states where their re-election isn't a sure thing.
If 26 dead children can't get an AWB passed, nothing will IMO.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-16-16, 15:38
What is to stop Obama or the DOJ just dumping the no-fly list into the NCIS database? Don't they all the BGCs run on the national database? So you could be denied a purchase- but wouldn't they have to show a reason- beyond just being on the list.
You can pass a law that says the no-fly list is the no buy list, but to add the no-fly list to the prohibited people could be done with out the law being changed. The issue would be that if you petitioned why not allowed and it came back no-fly list inclusion, that wouldn't stand as a reason to be denied.
Right?
I wrote my Congressmen and Senators, but who really thinks the Republicans are going to pass anything? They want to stay in office, and so do the Dems in states where their re-election isn't a sure thing.
If 26 dead children can't get an AWB passed, nothing will IMO.
I feel you, but take nothing for granted.
I am firmly ensconced in a Confederate state and still called to voice my concern.
There can be no compromise. I feel poorly that innocent people die, far more than some fool on Facebook posting up vigil macros.
Knocking on someone"s door to tell them their kid or husband is dead never gets easier. And never should.
But our rights as Americans, as citizens of a sovereign nation are off the table to appease anyone's feelings.
Bad things happen to good people and those who refuse to accept that fact are in fantasy land.
We are not gods.
We are not immortal.
We are hairless apes who can't even agree on what year it is and you think a law will change that?
Please...
Uh, this is confusing, NRA and Cornyn are in favor of folks losing their Constitutional right to own a gun despite not having committed any crimes.
Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists
Uh, this is confusing, NRA and Cornyn are in favor of folks losing their Constitutional right to own a gun despite not having committed any crimes.
Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists
Which is retarded because they'll ask why they are delayed and even if you lie to them they'll assume they are on "The List".
It's like people are having a dumbass competition and the terries are loving it because it doesn't affect them
Which is retarded because they'll ask why they are delayed and even if you lie to them they'll assume they are on "The List".
This is what Comey said, Lynch overturned him.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch overruled FBI Director James B. Comey on Thursday, saying the Obama administration does support denying firearms sales to those on terrorist watch lists and that it can be done without harming investigations.
Mr. Comey last year had told Congress that denying sales could “blow” his agents’ investigations into potential terrorists. But his superiors at the Justice Department issued a statement Thursday saying they want to see Congress approve the “no-fly, no-buy” plan Democrats are pursuing
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/doj-overrules-fbi-gun-sales-debate/
MountainRaven
06-16-16, 17:02
I'm sure the feds will fast & furious any guns they genuinely believe are being bought by terrorists to preserve on-going investigations.
Wow. That's just plain ol' ign'nt.
Because if I were a sleeper..
A) I'd be LMAO right now
B) Likely already have the stuff I need
C)Feel like I'm actually accomplishing something
They said after 9/11 that our country would be itreparably changed. They are succeeding.
'Useful Idiots' gets tossed around a lot but damn if it isn't true.
These people have had 26 years to get ready for this. It changes nothing for them.
So while these piece of shit politicians have their 24/7 security and exclusive residences...
What about us? What's that?
Shut up and keep paying taxes?
Figured as much.
40040
Terrorist uses guns to kill unarmed people. What's our masters- er um I mean leaders response...
"Let's make sure we make it harder for law abiding folks to get guns and to protect themselves...the terrorists will also follow these new laws, the old ones they don't follow, but these new ones they just have to because- well we have to do something...guns are bad- unless it's our security detail that has them, we need to be protected..."
Outlander Systems
06-16-16, 17:31
I distill it down to this:
Terrorists attack. We lose rights.
Tell me who's winning the, "War On Terror."
It *IS* that simple.
Wow. That's just plain ol' ign'nt.
Because if I were a sleeper..
A) I'd be LMAO right now
B) Likely already have the stuff I need
C)Feel like I'm actually accomplishing something
They said after 9/11 that our country would be itreparably changed. They are succeeding.
'Useful Idiots' gets tossed around a lot but damn if it isn't true.
These people have had 26 years to get ready for this. It changes nothing for them.
So while these piece of shit politicians have their 24/7 security and exclusive residences...
What about us? What's that?
Shut up and keep paying taxes?
Figured as much.
I distill it down to this:
Terrorists attack. We lose rights.
Tell me who's winning the, "War On Terror."
It *IS* that simple.
It's like the plot of some twisted onion story.
Terrorists want us to change the way we live and take away our freedoms.
So what do we do, we arm the hell out of them and try to deny Americans their rights...it would be laughable if it wasn't so painful to live through.
Seriously, I feel more and more like I went to sleep and woke up in a different dimension, likely the twilight zone. It just gets weirder and weirder and people get dumber and dumber. It's depressing as hell...
My senators to vote down a ban, is like asking an ISIS member to accept Jesus as his savior.
This. Yet another reason I'm done with MA
Outlander Systems
06-16-16, 18:19
It really is. It's like bizzaro world.
Maybe there is something to that Barenstain/Barenstein Bears shit...
It's like the plot of some twisted onion story.
Terrorists want us to change the way we live and take away our freedoms.
So what do we do, we arm the hell out of them and try to deny Americans their rights...it would be laughable if it wasn't so painful to live through.
Seriously, I feel more and more like I went to sleep and woke up in a different dimension, likely the twilight zone. It just gets weirder and weirder and people get dumber and dumber. It's depressing as hell...
It really is. It's like bizzaro world.
May there is something to that Barenstain/Barenstein Bears shit...
Haha please don't give that nonsense a millisecond of contemplation.
Outlander Systems
06-16-16, 18:28
I can refute the shit out of that.
I remember trying to figure out why the authors' names were different from the bear's names. Then I paid attention, and realized I was wrong.
It's a simple mental hiccup that damn near broke the Internet.
Haha please don't give that nonsense a millisecond of contemplation.
I can refute the shit out of that.
I remember trying to figure out why the authors' names were different from the bear's names. Then I paid attention, and realized I was wrong.
It's a simple mental hiccup that damn near broke the Internet.
Recently I've seen people freaking out over: Sex "and" the City, Looney "Tunes", and realizing that there are 6 (rather than 4) people in the car the Zapruder film...
Outlander Systems
06-16-16, 18:32
I'm gonna have to look those up. I have a guilty pleasure in mental junk food sometimes!
Recently I've seen people freaking out over: Sex "and" the City, Looney "Tunes", and realizing that there are 6 (rather than 4) people in the car the Zapruder film...
SomeOtherGuy
06-16-16, 20:36
Funny aside: I received a GOA email this afternoon urging me to call my senators, and actually bothered trying to do so. My state has two "D" senators, one of which is not quite as bad as the other. I tried that one first. It was like calling the cable company. I went through four layers of voicemail morass, only to reach a message "the voicemail box is full. Please try again later." And it hung up. Not even a pretense that I might have reached a live human being.
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, but my already dismal view of our "representative democracy" took another hit today.
I wrote my Congressmen and Senators, but who really thinks the Republicans are going to pass anything? They want to stay in office, and so do the Dems in states where their re-election isn't a sure thing.
If 26 dead children can't get an AWB passed, nothing will IMO.
Looks like they'll be passing this.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/15/gop-leaders-endorseobama-cve-jihad/
Eternal vigilance is most tiring
Been at it since I became aware during the 1968 gun control push. What is really tiring are the idiot voters.
Looks like they'll be passing this.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/15/gop-leaders-endorseobama-cve-jihad/
I don't think this is going anywhere! At least I hope not!
Supposedly 4 Bills Monday. NRA supports 1. That is supposed to fail. Some say all will fail. That probably is the game the Dems are playing. If they win one, great, if not, they use the fact the Republicans caused it to fail. Based on the Ryans adn Romnies, and other such RINOs that's reason enough to cave. Even though they are already irrelevant.
Plus I would think that most of that care to have done the emails and phone calls will have the effect we all want also.
http://gunowners.org/alert06162016b.htm
I find myself cheering out loud at the TV or radio when I wake up and hear that yet more political grandstanding comes to nothing when it reaches a vote. None of the four bills got out of the starting blocks. Cue the liberals blaming Trump, the NRA, the Republicans, etc.
I used to think that most of the anti-gun rhetoric was just that. But now I think a lot of these idiots actually believe this crap. Obviously there's no minimum IQ requirement to be a Senator or member of Congress.
Digital_Damage
06-21-16, 06:57
Dems 4, Pugs 0
The Democrats got exactly what they wanted, Senators on record heading to the polls.
This had nothing todo do with passing the senate, it is more subtle than that.
Yeah, this had everything to do with votes and nothing to do with actual measures passing. They can now rally their base against the people who "voted against common sense gun control."
Idk, last time the measures were voted down, you saw Republicans fill a lot of seats in Congress. Not because of the voting down of gun control, but I'm saying it didn't result in Democrats filling seats. Both parties are the same anyway at this point.
Idk, last time the measures were voted down, you saw Republicans fill a lot of seats in Congress. Not because of the voting down of gun control, but I'm saying it didn't result in Democrats filling seats. Both parties are the same anyway at this point.
I tend to agree. Maybe the Republicans will loose a seat or two in November, but I just don't see it swinging the other way... I hope
Congress does nothing fast. NOTHING. The Dems wanted to ram this in quickly before any opposition gained traction. I love that it, again, blew up in their face.
Digital_Damage
06-21-16, 07:48
I tend to agree. Maybe the Republicans will loose a seat or two in November, but I just don't see it swinging the other way... I hope
There are around 6-7 Republican seats considered "up for grabs", part of that is seats becoming available when some decided to run for the Whitehouse.
This is not really about the Senate anyways, it is a proxy fight for the Whitehouse.
FWIW, I called Manchin's DC office this AM re his contempt for "due process", watch lists. Just because, etc.
The staffer I talked to couldn't backpedal fast enough on the topic. Sounds like he got a LOT of blowback.
As he should.
You missed California, CT and NY on your count. Different theaters, same conflict.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-21-16, 14:01
So did everyone get to vote for one bill so that they can say back home "I supported' something about guns?
Congress does nothing fast. NOTHING. The Dems wanted to ram this in quickly before any opposition gained traction. I love that it, again, blew up in their face.
But, they can use it to promote HC and their agenda by screaming they did all they could to save us from the evil gun lobby and the GOP stopped it. etc. I'd suspect they were well aware that none of it would pass and their longer term strategy all along here. We'll see which face it blows up in come election time and how effectively they use it.
Throw up bills you know will not pass to take advantage of a crisis, use the results to press the agenda later. The GOP may have been outmaneuvered on this one, but they were in an untenable position but held firm.
But, they can use it to promote HC and their agenda by screaming they did all they could to save us from the evil gun lobby and the GOP stopped it. etc. I'd suspect they were well aware that none of it would pass and their longer term strategy all along here. We'll see which face it blows up in come election time and how effectively they use it.
Throw up bills you know will not pass to take advantage of a crisis, use the results to press the agenda later. The GOP may have been outmaneuvered on this one, but they were in an untenable position but held firm.
Don't make the assumption that it will hurt the Republicans very badly. It will resonate with the Democrat base but that's about it. Don't think it's gonna sway many (if any) "R" voters.
Digital_Damage
06-21-16, 14:38
But, they can use it to promote HC and their agenda by screaming they did all they could to save us from the evil gun lobby and the GOP stopped it. etc. I'd suspect they were well aware that none of it would pass and their longer term strategy all along here. We'll see which face it blows up in come election time and how effectively they use it.
Throw up bills you know will not pass to take advantage of a crisis, use the results to press the agenda later. The GOP may have been outmaneuvered on this one, but they were in an untenable position but held firm.
Exactly, this was setup for the debates.
If this was a legit attempt they would have sided with the proposal the GOP put forth which was the same but a 3 day wait. They keep talking about doing something no matter how small... except when the GOP suggest it.
jerrysimons
06-21-16, 15:10
Don't make the assumption that it will hurt the Republicans very badly. It will resonate with the Democrat base but that's about it. Don't think it's gonna sway many (if any) "R" voters.
The long game is to rally the left to vote on the issue. We have only been winning on guns at the federal level recently because it is an issue over which we will vote. Don't forget it was a Democratic controlled Senate that didn't pass an AWB after SandyHook. The majority of public opinion is in their favor though, pawned as they are by ignorance and political rhetoric if not outright worship of Government. Their challenge has been getting people to vote over increased gun-control, or vote out because of it. The may succeed as millennials adult enough to vote (for that matter so might outright communism!) and the sound bite, "He voted to allow terrorists to buy assault weapons!" in the next election cycle was worth the 15hr filibuster to force the vote.
ColtSeavers
06-21-16, 15:37
Just glad nothing passed.
I tire of my inalienable rights being held for ransom against me.
I'm sorry dipshit shot up a club, I really do feel bad for the victims, but he's dead now so why attempt to punish me and everybody else?
Yeah, this had everything to do with votes and nothing to do with actual measures passing. They can now rally their base against the people who "voted against common sense gun control."
There is that. But it was also another opportunity. They will take every opportunity they can get. We will see it again before November. The fact that everyone "held fast" is more of a good thing than a bad thing.
Let's not forget that in 2004 the renewal of the Clinton assault weapon ban was successfully amended to an industry protection bill introduced by Larry Craig. And that was with a Republican MAJORITY House and Senate.
These guys can sell us out at any time, especially if they get something for it.
There is that. But it was also another opportunity. They will take every opportunity they can get. We will see it again before November. The fact that everyone "held fast" is more of a good thing than a bad thing.
"I have only two men out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." -- Clifton B. Cates, Belleau Wood, July 1918
They can't hold forever.
The_War_Wagon
06-21-16, 16:22
Anytime Whinestein, Schnauzer, & Chuckles are boo-hooing simultaneously on the news, I automatically assume it to be a GOOD day for Liberty & the U.S. Constitution! :dance3:
Every time the left brings up "gun control", they get "trumped" in the next major election. America doesn't want it, and ain't havin' it, regardless of what the lying MSM says. That is how we gained control of the senate most recently. I remember this being the case all the way back to Clinton. The repubs retook the house and senate after Billy Boy got his '94 AWB passed. The Dems got stomped in the next mid term election after that. I don't see any reason why this election will be any different. Unless the whole thing is rigged...
It also put Dem senators, like one of ours, on record. If nothing else maybe it will at least get the "never Trump" crowd out to vote for the senate and house races.
jerrysimons
06-21-16, 19:30
Every time the left brings up "gun control", they get "trumped" in the next major election. America doesn't want it, and ain't havin' it, regardless of what the lying MSM says. That is how we gained control of the senate most recently. I remember this being the case all the way back to Clinton. The repubs retook the house and senate after Billy Boy got his '94 AWB passed. The Dems got stomped in the next mid term election after that. I don't see any reason why this election will be any different. Unless the whole thing is rigged...
Politics are not static. Keep your guard keep the cause in focus. Just one election cycle ago the Democratic Party was against gay marriage.
More on the Bills.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/284188-senate-votes-down-closing-terror-loophole
The Repubs at least had the foresight to float their own bills which weren't that bad at initial reading. It is important to point out to libs that THEIR senators passed on the opportunity to cut in the terror watchlist into NCIS with due process INCLUDED (sort of). Typical my way or you are wrong liberals, just reaching for mud for the next campaign add.
Also wasn't Trump maligned lately for inferring Obama was helping terrorists? But it is not indecent to accuse the American people via Congress of murder having blood on their hands for maintaining our rights...
Before you vote "shall not be infringed", hear me out.
An actual compromise: Universal background checks for universal CCW reciprocity.
Universal background checks would require private sales to be done with a background check of some sort, with the exception of relatives. Everyone would have access to the background check system (a NICS subset), but it would only give a Yes or No answer along with the person's name and year of birth, so you can roughly verify that the person before you likely matches the SSN or DL# given. No records of background checks would be saved, no gun serial #s would even be entered, and it would be up to the government to prove you guilty for a transaction without a background check rather than for guilt to be assumed and making you prove you did a background check. Showing a valid CCW or badge would be a sufficient replacement for a background check. Think alcohol and cigarette sales / providing alcohol to a minor regarding ID checks. FFL sales would remain unchanged and still require a 4473.
In return, any valid CCW issued by a state or territory must be recognized throughout the United States. Local gun laws still apply that don't ban concealed carry of a loaded semi-auto pistol. For example, 10 rd mag limits would still apply in states that have them, but laws banning having a loaded firearm in public or laws banning magazines in firearms while in a vehicle would exempt CCW holders.
Would you go for such a compromise? It could be enforced on the states via giving/taking of large incentives or by an all-or-nothing clause similar to a treaty to preserve states rights.
Business_Casual
06-22-16, 21:12
Unicorn hunting. Take a look at the people who participated in the sit-in in the House today. They have zero interest in facts or logic.
With today's technology it's hard to assume that no record of a person's DL # or SSN would not be kept somewhere. Not to sound all tinfoil hat, but it's kind of like tracking google searches. The whole "everything online will always be there" thing and all.
It's also very hard to believe that all 50 states including CA, NJ, &c would be onboard with the CCW recipricity thing.
With today's technology it's hard to assume that no record of a person's DL # or SSN would not be kept somewhere. Not to sound all tinfoil hat, but it's kind of like tracking google searches. The whole "everything online will always be there" thing and all.
It's also very hard to believe that all 50 states including CA, NJ, &c would be onboard with the CCW recipricity thing.
But with no gun serial # even entered into the system, what would it track besides that someone was run through a background check? It could even be used for a quick verification by employers.
That's why I included the last part. An all-or-nothing provision would basically state, it only goes into effect once all states pass the entire law.
According to the Constitution, universal carry (concealed or otherwise) should already exist everywhere and "only those engaged in business for profit" should be required to do background checks on buyers.
It is a unreasonable burden to place on a private seller who is already at risk of being declared an "unlicensed dealer."
A better trade would be universal FFLs for all that wish to have them. That way everyone worried about it can simply pull a FFL and do a background check. This means no "code and zoning" roadblocks or anything of that kind.
If they want people to assume the same kind of responsibility as a FFL, let them issue FFLs to everyone who wants one that isn't a prohibited person. That would be my solution and then we don't have to infringe on any rights. Kitchen table FFLs for all, bound book records and 4473s of all transactions.
Problem solved.
No. No compromise. Compromise is what took us from 1776 to where we are today.
The left doesn't compromise and look at the ground they've claimed. This is war. Did we compromise with the Germans? How about the Japanese?
Mods, dunno if this ties with pre-existing threads. Please merge if it does.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/house-democrats-stage-sit-in-protest-in-dispute-over-gun-control.html
I turn on CNN after a long day and they are staging a childish, hippie college kid-style sit-in to force a gun control/gun ban vote.
Adding to this insult, it was started by John Lewis(D)-GA.
WTAF, Over?!
Don't get your way so we just toss civility and decorum out the window?
Holy God, this is like mob rule. Like what rioters do.
And these people live off OUR taxes and vote for their own raises?
This is seriously disgusting, and the world is watching. This makes us all as a nation look ignorant, weak, stupid, and soft.
Mods, dunno if this ties with pre-existing threads. Please merge if it does.
I turn on CNN after a long day and they are staging a childish, hippie college kid-style sit-in to force a gun control/gun ban vote.
Adding to this insult, it was started by John Lewis(D)-GA.
WTAF, Over?!
Don't get your way so we just toss civility and decorum out the window?
Holy God, this is like mob rule. Like what rioters do.
And these people live off OUR taxes and vote for their own raises?
This is seriously disgusting, and the world is watching. This makes us all as a nation look ignorant, weak, stupid, and soft.
Yeah, how about we let them sit on O-Block in Chicago where the gun laws are more to their liking. Let's see if that changes their minds.
The left is so far gone it's ridiculous.
Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk
wildcard600
06-22-16, 22:14
According to the Constitution, universal carry (concealed or otherwise) should already exist everywhere and "only those engaged in business for profit" should be required to do background checks on buyers.
It is a unreasonable burden to place on a private seller who is already at risk of being declared an "unlicensed dealer."
A better trade would be universal FFLs for all that wish to have them. That way everyone worried about it can simply pull a FFL and do a background check. This means no "code and zoning" roadblocks or anything of that kind.
If they want people to assume the same kind of responsibility as a FFL, let them issue FFLs to everyone who wants one that isn't a prohibited person. That would be my solution and then we don't have to infringe on any rights. Kitchen table FFLs for all, bound book records and 4473s of all transactions.
Problem solved.
This right here ^^^^
CCW reciprocity does nothing for those in constitutional carry states and personally I find the idea reprehensible that someone has to get a permission slip to drape a shirt over a weapon when in most cases they can carry it openly without one.
Simply put, the government cannot be trusted to hold up their end of the bargain. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why the BoR was enshrined within the Constitution. Every member of this forum knows there are senior members of our ruling class who don't respect it, and only understand it insomuch as they need to in order to undermine and circumvent it.
While its OK to entertain such a fantasy, one cannot beat the devil in a deal. The only concession I'd entertain is one where the minute they reneged on their end of the bargain, I get to shoot them in the face without repercussion. I'm not saying I would and I'm not saying I wouldn't, but I'd want them to live with the certainty that the only thing between them and a bullet, was complete honesty and compliance with the bargain they struck.
Think they'd agree to that deal? Yeah, neither do I, because they wouldn't live up to their word. They have no intention of doing anything but what's within their nature. :(
Yeah, how about we let them sit on O-Block in Chicago where the gun laws are so strict. Let's see if that changes their minds.
The left is so far gone it's ridiculous.
Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk
I know, right. It is reckless, ignorant actions of persons in authority that literally allowed Yugoslavia to break up and devolve to Civil War.
There was a vote. It failed. The people were represented. Deal with it.
Willful disregard just shows the actual working people that you don't care what they say and meanwhile you are emboldening the professional radicals and career hippies who hold extraordinarily umrealistic views on how society is.
I expect Gunbroker will be getting a lot of bids and if you own a gun store, business will be brisk tomorrow.
This will NOT be a trick-a-nickel jive like 1994. People know full well that another Federal AWB will stick.
And this is on top of them dumping off these unvetted, military age little SWA/WA fvckers in every city they can think of.
So.....I dunno. I don't mean anything extreme or seditious but if shit really started going to hell; We as a country are not ready.
Not Federally, Not at the State level, and not Locally.
And guys with 50lb "BOBs" like the TOS with Punisher skulls ARs will simply not survive. If anything they will add to the problem.
Europe's getting here quick and I was reading some old Louis Awerbuck articles/interviews and what he said rings true....
At the end of the day, a lean bastard with a Mauser on the hill will likely be last man standing.
Just my take. If I have a fuzzy sight picture, someone please set me straight.
Democrats, grown ass ADULTS are staging a hippie sit in at Capitol Hill
Right. Now.
Trust me, they are not doing anything to benefit us, ever.
When the end goal is complete removal of firearms from private hands, compromise is just a delay so everyone can feel good that there was progress made. The left knows they knocked down another domino, the right feels like they avoided another big ban or whatever.
No compromise. Not when it puts your life at stake.
So when they asked civil rights icon John Lewis what "freedoms he was protecting" by violating House rules with his sit in he answered "Freedom from gun violence."
Never mind that there had already been FOUR votes where "the people" were represented. Because Democrats didn't get what they wanted, they reverted back to the "screw the rules if we don't win" mindset of 60s radicals.
They are seemingly ignorant that they are actually attacking a civil right, number TWO in the Bill of Rights.
Can you imagine for a moment of freedom of speech and religion was under attack because people felt "black churches" foster and promote violence? Can you imagine the outcry if they actually had to have a vote to see if they could LIMIT the freedoms of "black churches"? Can you imagine the mass rioting if after four attempts to pass such a law failed and the people who tried to push it through then ignored the votes and tried to force another vote?
For people who say they are so concerned about freedom, they don't seem to grasp the concept.
brushy bill
06-22-16, 22:50
Already, we are bargaining for rights we possess. At the same time, we beg the most wretched amongst us to allow us to keep inalienable rights never granted by governments. Meanwhile, we walk on eggshells to avoid offending this same constituency on virtually any other issue. It is preposterous & revolting at best.
While its OK to entertain such a fantasy, one cannot beat the devil in a deal.
Yep, basically you are trading a right you should already have for a right that you used to have before they took it. It's kind of like buying your car back from the thief who took it at 50% of it's value and believing you got a good deal.
But I have a counter offer, respect my rights and in return I promise not to shoot those who would engage in violating my rights. I think that's a pretty fair trade all around.
The likelihood of achieving nationwide constitutional carry (or at least shall-issue permit carry) alone - without any added 'compromise' - is equal to your suggestion.
crusader377
06-22-16, 22:56
I voted nay, because the gun control people aren't bringing anything to the table. If they dropped the ATF tax stamp and made purchasing SBRs no different than normal rifles or pistols and treat silencers no differently than optics or AR accessories then I may get on board and vote yea.
I hate these people... I really really do...
They are worthless POS, as are the people that vote for them.
They are worthless POS, as are the people that vote for them.
I hate those people as well.
Eta: the fact that their trying SOO hard to redirect attention from the obvious topic at hand should speak volumes as to their intentions..
brushy bill
06-22-16, 23:07
So when they asked civil rights icon John Lewis what "freedoms he was protecting" by violating House rules with his sit in he answered "Freedom from gun violence."
Never mind that there had already been FOUR votes where "the people" were represented. Because Democrats didn't get what they wanted, they reverted back to the "screw the rules if we don't win" mindset of 60s radicals.
They are seemingly ignorant that they are actually attacking a civil right, number TWO in the Bill of Rights.
Can you imagine for a moment of freedom of speech and religion was under attack because people felt "black churches" foster and promote violence? Can you imagine the outcry if they actually had to have a vote to see if they could LIMIT the freedoms of "black churches"? Can you imagine the mass rioting if after four attempts to pass such a law failed and the people who tried to push it through then ignored the votes and tried to force another vote?
For people who say they are so concerned about freedom, they don't seem to grasp the concept.
They have never been interested in freedom of any sort, only control. "Freedom" is merely a pretense to forward a typically radical ideology. Usually, "freedom" equates to undermining family, religion, or some other societal stalwart. Others should concede "tolerance" to these radical views. However, they are in turn the most intolerant of the intolerant. They will accept nothing but complete submission to & acceptance of their views. We should respond in kind by disregarding them & reducing them to the fringe radicals they are, but most haven't the courage & the ship has likely sailed.
Is your issue with the Dems "sit-in", or because of their support for lists without due process?
The Republicans introduced Senate Amendment 4749, which was backed by the NRA. It would have made it impossible for terrorists on the “terrorist watchlist” to purchase a firearm.
Is your issue with the Dems "sit-in", or because of their support for lists without due process?
The Republicans introduced Senate Amendment 4749, which was backed by the NRA. It would have made it impossible for terrorists on the “terrorist watchlist” to purchase a firearm.
Fair question.
I think I am mostly, if not entirely, disgusted by their current actions of the sit in.
There are rules. I may not, and don't, agree with anyone in politics, but there are rules.
This is tantamount to telling a kid "No toy today. We are just going to market for groceries" and they sit down and bawl in front of God and everyone.
Currently, their physical actions have me perturbed moreso than their agenda at the moment
Gotcha. Just wondering. I didn't know about 4749 until right before I posted that.
brushy bill
06-22-16, 23:32
Fair question.
I think I am mostly, if not entirely, disgusted by their current actions of the sit in.
There are rules. I may not, and don't, agree with anyone in politics, but there are rules.
This is tantamount to telling a kid "No toy today. We are just going to market for groceries" and they sit down and bawl in front of God and everyone.
Currently, their physical actions have me perturbed moreso than their agenda at the moment
NO. It is much worse. A child may not know better. These multiple term communists know very well what the rules are, have roundly criticized Republicans for "shutting down" govt to protect rights in the past, and having lost 4X on the same issue during a single day, are having a tantrum with no repercussions. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, foreign or domestic (some of us swore an oath...for what that is worth these days).
I'm realizing we really do have a balkanization of America. There are parts of "America," where, because of entitlement/welfare/immigration or other issues, the public will never vote against a demoncrat regardless of criminality, susceptibility to foreign influence, etc. My viewpoint & theirs are so far removed, no similarities remain. I have much more in common with people in foreign nations than in east/west coast. I dare say, I'm not alone. This can't go on forever.
Yep, basically you are trading a right you should already have for a right that you used to have before they took it. It's kind of like buying your car back from the thief who took it at 50% of it's value and believing you got a good deal.
But I have a counter offer, respect my rights and in return I promise not to shoot those who would engage in violating my rights. I think that's a pretty fair trade all around.
Pretty damn good and apt analogy.
The irony here is, as usual, hilariously mindboggling.
Let me see if I got this straight...
4 bills go up for vote (hey, this sounds familiar- 4 guys walk into a bar...).
Dems support 2.
Our good RINO buddies support two.
Rino's vote down Dems proposals, not because they give two shits but because they need to be seen to be [acting like they are] upholding constitutionally guaranteed rights in a vital election year, and slapping down a couple Dem bills gets them a few more 'Merica memes on fartbook.
Dems vote down RINO proposals not because they give two shits, but because they hate the Republican party to much to see, through the haze of red, that the RINO bills are exactly what they want. But that would show the evil republicans "doing something about gun violence", thereby taking away the Dem's stick they need to beat the Republican's over the head with for the rest of the election season.
Dems then throw a hissy fit over not getting their way after voting their way down.
How much do you want to bet this was an "Oh shit" moment after the voting uproar when they realized what they just passed up, and then had to do something to save face with all their good little "activist"-wannabe constituents?
There are two things to be learned from this;
1) If anyone still had a thought that the Republican party is on your side...
2) These people, it seems especially those on the blue side, are to damn stupid to own a government pencil, let alone hold high political office. And yet somehow I feel like I should be thankful for that....
I voted nay, because the gun control people aren't bringing anything to the table. If they dropped the ATF tax stamp and made purchasing SBRs no different than normal rifles or pistols and treat silencers no differently than optics or AR accessories then I may get on board and vote yea.
The ONLY thing that would make me consider UBCs is if they scrapped it all. If they opened the registry and dumped the sporter clause then I would play the game. I'd even be willing to pay the cost of the background check to be a "registered machine gun collector" just like I pay the cost of a background check when I applied for a CCW. Let's call it a one time cost of $200 to get you set up and on the books.
But that means we can buy ANYTHING. We can import HK UMPs and Ultimax 100s. We can import any semi auto we want. No more "ATF acceptable configurations", no more 922r horseshit, none of it. All or nothing.
I want to be able to buy 100 year old Lugers from a Swiss seller on Gunbroker and have them shipped to my home WITHOUT the need for import markings. After all, I'd be a "registered" gun collector. I want to be able to buy HK MP7s with the correct ammunition, because I'd be a "registered" gun collector. I want to be able to buy surplus AK-47s, AKMs and other soviet bloc weapons from Israel and anything else at market value.
That is the compromise I'd be willing to put on the table. Then I would be "getting something" in exchange for "giving something."
lawusmc0844
06-23-16, 01:35
NO. It is much worse. A child may not know better. These multiple term communists know very well what the rules are, have roundly criticized Republicans for "shutting down" govt to protect rights in the past, and having lost 4X on the same issue during a single day, are having a tantrum with no repercussions. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, foreign or domestic (some of us swore an oath...for what that is worth these days).
I seriously can't stand both parties but I outright DESPISE the DNC and the morons who still blindly support them. Their true colors show through this childish stunt they're pulling. They are so ****ing hypocritical and disingenuous I can't post what I truly feel about them here.
I took that oath myself, twice. I place a strong emphasis on "...all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC" because the way I see it, the DNC and their rabid supporters are the domestic enemy.
I'm realizing we really do have a balkanization of America. There are parts of "America," where, because of entitlement/welfare/immigration or other issues, the public will never vote against a demoncrat regardless of criminality, susceptibility to foreign influence, etc. My viewpoint & theirs are so far removed, no similarities remain. I have much more in common with people in foreign nations than in east/west coast. I dare say, I'm not alone. This can't go on forever.
I have friends and many family members that still live in Hong Kong or Mainland China. They actually get excited and think its cool when I show them my weapons or at least pictures of them. Never had I heard any of them say that guns are scary and only the government should have them. They even got weapon familiarization courses in school with I'm sure a Type 56 SKS. Taking them to the range is always great but being in ****ing CA I can't even show them the cool stuff with the AR, only bench firing with 1 shot in between 3 seconds :mad:.
They all seem to have much respect for that fact I became a Marine, served 8 years and been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan twice. They will even brag to strangers that I served or even go as far as calling me a hero, which of course drives me crazy. On the other hand, the white liberals that I grew up with in the Bay Area think I'm either dumb or crazy for enlisting or having guns. Of course, Im not friends with cucks like those.
My buddy and roommate in Vegas was born and raised in Hong Kong, came to America LEGALLY, became a Marine and earned his citizenship, and loves guns as much as I do. He understands the Constitution much better than all these domestic born leftist sheeple and like me wants illegals kicked out. He has a good taste in rifles as well, a Arsenal SGL-21 and a Colt LE6920. I said **** CA and became a Nevada resident and moved in with him.
Yes, you aren't alone in your sentiment.
Moose-Knuckle
06-23-16, 01:51
Exactly, repeal everything from '34, '68, '86, and '89.
Eurodriver
06-23-16, 04:36
Has it been mentioned yet that Republicans did exactly the same thing 8 years ago?
Averageman
06-23-16, 06:56
Any sort of compromise with these people leads to what is in essence a foot in the door to further the agenda in the future.
The time is now to make them look like fools recapture the narrative and give a clear cut explanation to the American Public why this is not in their best interest, does not make them safer and how the violence brought on by radical islam in America is the result of the Progressive Agenda.
The only compromise I would go for is universal background check with absolutely NO DATA on the type of firearm ever entered into any system, paper (i.e. 4473) or electronic in exchange for:
- repeal of sporting clause of 1968 GCA
- repeal of 922(o)
- Universal concealed carry
In the current climate, any relaxation of the NFA is a non starter... they want the literal exact opposite, a reinstatement of the AWB.
BoringGuy45
06-23-16, 08:55
I voted nay, because the gun control people aren't bringing anything to the table. If they dropped the ATF tax stamp and made purchasing SBRs no different than normal rifles or pistols and treat silencers no differently than optics or AR accessories then I may get on board and vote yea.
That's where I'm sitting as well. If we could get national carry and take SBRs and suppressors off the NFA, I won't have a problem doing paperwork for a rifle. But the anti-gun left has one M.O: We want ALL your guns, but we'll "compromise" and only take some...for now.
This right here ^^^^
CCW reciprocity does nothing for those in constitutional carry states and personally I find the idea reprehensible that someone has to get a permission slip to drape a shirt over a weapon when in most cases they can carry it openly without one.
This.
Especially when OC is the far more dangerous option.
The problem with background checks...they are not a predictor of future activity. Someone is gtg...until they are not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
06-23-16, 09:44
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/2016/06/22/exploiting-orlando-nets-advance-anti-gun-agenda-8-1
Exploiting Orlando: Nets Advance Anti-Gun Agenda By 8 to 1:
And for the next week, an MRC study shows the broadcast network news programs flooded their shows with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ratio of 8 to 1.
http://cdn.newsbusters.org/styles/blog_body-100/s3/images/gunchartb.jpg
I joke with my wife that I watch CBS just to see what the Left's propaganda machine is churning out.
Last week, it was like a multi-hour obsession/tooth-gnashing fest over Trump.
How anyone can, sincerely, accept "News" as anything even remotely resembling objective journalism, is beyond me.
Has it been mentioned yet that Republicans did exactly the same thing 8 years ago?
I don't recall that but if so then that is still a chump move regardless of party.
Not saying it didn't happen. I just don't recall so I'll take your word for it.
On the heels of the Democrats pouting and crying that they can't get their way, we have the ACLU chiming in and urging our elected officials to vote against this unconstitutional crap.
Their stance is pretty basic. They are ok with some regulation when it comes to true public safety. (I am sure we disagree with them on the extent of that part). However you don't get to do away with Due process and the rule of law in the name of fear.
https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-urging-senators-vote-no-cornyn-amendment-4749-and-feinstein-amendment-4720-hr
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/2016/06/22/exploiting-orlando-nets-advance-anti-gun-agenda-8-1
Exploiting Orlando: Nets Advance Anti-Gun Agenda By 8 to 1:
I joke with my wife that I watch CBS just to see what the Left's propaganda machine is churning out.
Last week, it was like a multi-hour obsession/tooth-gnashing fest over Trump.
How anyone can, sincerely, accept "News" as anything even remotely resembling objective journalism, is beyond me.
Ahh yes. The editorializing.
Real big heroes. I don't even watch Fox anymore. I hit up CNN once or twice a day just to see what they are bitching about.
Guns, Trump, Black folks feeling oppressed, Women feeling oppressed, Hillary being the next Messiah, Jihadis not the real threat.
Milo Yiannopolis said something. He said that until the massive influx of 'migrants' that he had not nor had most gays had reason to feel physically threatened.
He had a point. By and large, gay bashing and "fag stomping" really hasn't been much of a thing for a good while. I don't think it is the lifestyle for me, but hay folks honestly don't really factor in my daily life. I know some prissy down low dudes and some over aggressive dykey women but I tune them out like everything else that doesn't concern me.
But maybe a friend invites me clubbing as a friend to a "gay" establishment. Or Elton or Erasure is in town. Or I decide to go do Rocky Horror again.
Do I gotta be at Condition Orange when honestly I'm just trying to relax and have fun? Do I gotta carry a gun more than I already do? Can I not have a break?
Hire more off duty guys, give 'em rifles, and let them be the designated hitters so people can have a life.
Sometimes I need a break from gun toting and dealing with the world. We all do.
That's the point. That's the failing. Not guns, not who you screw, but letting known, dangerous loose cannons go off and then putting up 'Gun Free Zone' signs but offering no protection beyond an unspoken gentleman's that there will be no gunplay on the premises.
It's like I say...
focusing on the bullshit and ignoring the real shit.
http://www.gunsnet.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=4178
Not the first time the ACLU has come down on such foolishness:
The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. State law has long exempted people who have guns in their vehicles while "traveling" from being prosecuted for unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW), an offense punishable by up to a year in jail. But the definition of "traveling" was fuzzy, leaving gun owners vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, and conviction, depending on how police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to read and apply the law.
In 2005, at the urging of the gun groups and the state ACLU, the legislature passed a law that creates a presumption of "traveling" for any motorist in a private vehicle who is not legally disqualified from owning a gun, does not belong to "a criminal street gang," is not engaged in criminal activity (beyond minor traffic infractions), and is not carrying the gun in plain view. But in a report issued last February, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorneys are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out. http://reason.com/blog/2007/04/06/the-aclu-defends-gun-rights
So far, the media has portrayed concerns over civil rights in the Senate’s new gun-control push to be a paranoia among conservatives, and/or an artifact of fear-mongering by the NRA and gun manufacturers. The Daily Caller provides something of a game-changer for the debate, if other media bother to report it. The ACLU — hardly a shill for conservative thought and corporate lobbying — tells Vince Coglianese in an exclusive interview that they have their own concerns over infringements on civil rights:
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties.
The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.
The ACLU doesn’t oppose background checks, or even universal background checks. However, they do oppose the building of government databases on private citizens not accused of any crimes, which this bill could end up creating. While it doesn’t include universal registration, it also does not include any of the protections afforded gun buyers in existing background-check law:
“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.
“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.” …
But Calabrese says that Reid’s legislation fails to include those “privacy best practices.”
“Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.”
“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”
“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,” Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”
“So you just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.”
So, it’s not just paranoia from conservatives or the NRA behind opposition to the proposals for expanded background checks. It’s actually a rational concern over civil liberties, plus a legislative process that is either incompetently or maliciously undermining the existing protections in background-check law. Given the nature of the effort and the demagogic and dishonest campaign behind it, it’s pretty easy to assume the latter rather than the former. Either way, it’s bad news.
On occasion, I’ve criticized the ACLU for not defending the Second Amendment in its activism in courts and in politics. That’s not exactly what they’re doing here, of course; they’re more concerned about the Fourth and Fifth Amendment implications of the Senate’s gun-control bill than in the explicit individual right to bear arms. Still, give them kudos for speaking up at all; we’ll see how long they’ll commit to fighting Democrats to protect the privacy of gun owners.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/04/aclu-to-reid-not-so-fast-on-that-gun-control-bill/
I'm done bargaining. We've bargained for decades now and all it's gotten us is more restrictions and more fewer liberties. I vote 'Shall not be infringed' and we'll get reciprocity just like we're going to take our rights back. It's time we stopped being on the defensive and went after our rights. No more being reactionary which ends up causing us to 'compromise' so we don't seem like animals. Eff that noise. Giving up rights one at a time since the 30's and all we're told is that things are getting worse and worse. If that's the case then the restrictions clearly are having the opposite effect so why not set things back the way it was? Seems the more firearms we had in the hands of law abiding citizens and the fewer restrictions the less BS we had. So it's time we gave up on this multi-decade experiment and call it a failure and roll the 2A back to 1776 or at least the creation of the NFA and 86 the damn ATF that only soaks up money and does nothing to make us any safer. Cause Murica.
/rant
My only compromise would be UBC for national reciprocity, repeal 1968 GCA, and 1934 NFA.
Eurodriver
06-24-16, 06:26
I don't know about you guys but I value my right to privacy over any right to own a specific type of gun.
My compromise is in line to how the left compromises.
I want all gun laws repealed at the state and local and federal level.
Our "compromise" can be that the sporting clause is removed, the 34 NFA is removed and national CCW.
We never get shit in compromises I don't understand why we can't do the same to them.
I don't know about you guys but I value my right to privacy over any right to own a specific type of gun.
My compromise is in line to how the left compromises.
I want all gun laws repealed at the state and local and federal level.
Our "compromise" can be that the sporting clause is removed, the 34 NFA is removed and national CCW.
We never get shit in compromises I don't understand why we can't do the same to them.
You know, this is a really good point. If the AR's are "deadly weapons of war, that one must be cleared to own", then if you're gtg on those, you should be able to own whatever you want. So long as the wording was "shall issue" after whatever UBC, then f'n-a...sign me the f up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-martin-omalley/reinstate-the-combat-assa_b_10630392.html
And now it just isn't "assault weapons" it is that ARs are "combat assault weapons".
crusader377
06-24-16, 09:23
I think though this whole thread in many ways is a simple fantasy. The big things that 2A supporters do need to realize is that unless the situation greatly changes in the hearts and minds on left and anti-gun side, we should not engage in any sort of compromise. My initial response on this topic I was more talking in theoretical terms in negotiating with honest parties in good faith.
The truth of the matter however is the left rarely if ever does things in good faith. Many in the gun control camp are very passive aggressive people who are ok with using dishonesty to get their way.
In unicorn land I'd compromise to free, immediate UBC available to all. Either via a 1800#, web interface or app. No data on why the check is being run. Run it for your baby sitter or your neighbor who wants to buy your Glock. No special class of firearms. Anything from 50BMG to FA mini Uzi are good to go with nothing more. Same for suppressors. If you pass the check you can arty how you want anywhere in the USA.
In reality land. I'm done compromising. The deuche nozzles throwing temper tantrums don't want a compromise. They are dishonorable dipshits who would **** you in the ass while eating your children for dinner so long as they got their power fix. Dealing with them is silly. They would not abide by any laws they don't agree with.
I'm sick of this line of thinking, "compromise" on our rights? That's literally idiotic, truly reprehensible and just plain ig'nant.
I will never give up my rights, period. No compromising, no following unconstitutional laws. Nada. Rights are rights.
Eurodriver
06-24-16, 10:36
I'm sick of this line of thinking, "compromise" on our rights? That's literally idiotic, truly reprehensible and just plain ig'nant.
I will never give up my rights, period. No compromising, no following unconstitutional laws. Nada. Rights are rights.
How many illegal machine guns do you own? Do you carry a gun at elementary schools?
How many illegal machine guns do you own? Do you carry a gun at elementary schools?
If I felt like doing either I would. I'm not "talking tough". I'm pointing out that if we do not take action on our rights they are worthless. You're free to have your permission granted to you by the state, I'll take my rights on my own.
If I felt like doing either I would. I'm not "talking tough". I'm pointing out that if we do not take action on our rights they are worthless. You're free to have your permission granted to you by the state, I'll take my rights on my own.
So you've never submitted to S background check to buy a new gun?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
06-24-16, 12:12
I wonder if THCDDM4 has a concealed weapons permit - or if they're an open-carrier.
So you've never submitted to S background check to buy a new gun?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure how or why this thread has turned into "What THCDDM4 does and doesn't do"...not sure why you and other posters here feel the need to ask these questions...but lets get back to the regularly scheduled programming...
I wonder if THCDDM4 has a concealed weapons permit - or if they're an open-carrier.
Not sure how or why this thread has turned into "What THCDDM4 does and doesn't do"...not sure why you and other posters here feel the need to ask these questions...but lets get back to the regularly scheduled programming...
MountainRaven
06-24-16, 12:21
Not sure how or why this thread has turned into "What THCDDM4 does and doesn't do"...not sure why you and other posters here feel the need to ask these questions...but lets get back to the regularly scheduled programming...
Not sure how or why this thread has turned into "What THCDDM4 does and doesn't do"...not sure why you and other posters here feel the need to ask these questions...but lets get back to the regularly scheduled programming...
I think it's only natural for folks to wonder if you walk the walk or merely talk the talk.
Kind of like how MarkM (I think) posted some time ago about how people from 94-04 were all, "Molon labe!" about their fixed stock, 10-round magazine, unthreaded barrel, bayonet-lug-less ARs while he didn't say anything of the sort and just built pre-ban rifles on post-ban receivers.
I think it's only natural for folks to wonder if you walk the walk or merely talk the talk.
Kind of like how MarkM (I think) posted some time ago about how people from 94-04 were all, "Molon labe!" about their fixed stock, 10-round magazine, unthreaded barrel, bayonet-lug-less ARs while he didn't say anything of the sort and just built pre-ban rifles on post-ban receivers.
I Can understand that. I'll answer simply and you infer whatever you like from it, I really care not what people think of me other than my wife and mother really. Then lets go back to the thread topic and get off my personal choices and actions in life.
I do what is right, I am not a slave to any person, law or government.
Sort of back on topic -
Should we remove background checks from FFL gun sales?
Or even stronger, make background checks and ID checks on any gun transfer illegal?
Sort of back on topic -
Should we remove background checks from FFL gun sales?
Or even stronger, make background checks and ID checks on any gun transfer illegal?
No, we should recognize the distinction between a gun sold by a licensed dealer and a gun sold by a private individual. I do not support making a private individual assume the same kind of responsibility as a FFL when selling a gun.
The Brady Bill is what brought us NICS. It was, per the law, to be a unique number code assigned to the sale which was to be destroyed within (I think) 24 hours once approval had been given. This passed in '93, the year before the AWB. Fast forward a number of years later and I read an article that basically said that the ATF, despite the specifications in the Brady Bill were ignoring the destruction part and logging the shit into their (then) new uber-computer in Martinsburg, WV anyway.
If these pricks will outright ignore part of a law, what makes anyone think that they wouldn't do it again, as in a UBC with a simple up-or-down approval. I don't trust these gubmint monoliths any further than I can throw them.
From the FBI Fact Sheet on NICS:
Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.
Anyone truly believe that is happening or has been for over 20 years?
EDIT: it was originally 6 months, then down to 90 days, then finally down to 1 day when AG Ashcroft reduced it after the NRA lost a SCOTUS case to force the destruction of those records.
Not sure how or why this thread has turned into "What THCDDM4 does and doesn't do"...not sure why you and other posters here feel the need to ask these questions...but lets get back to the regularly scheduled programming...
Man, I can't speak for others, but mine was a legit question. I'd owned many guns and never ever had a BC until I was 35 years old. Always bought used because I thought BCs were BS.
It's all good...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have we forgotten the sage words of Heckle and Jeckle?
In a World of Compromise, Some Men Don't
No, we should recognize the distinction between a gun sold by a licensed dealer and a gun sold by a private individual. I do not support making a private individual assume the same kind of responsibility as a FFL when selling a gun.
Forgive me if you've posted the answer to this question elsewhere:
Assuming that a person feels that the current background checks conducted by an FFL are legit, what would you say to them that would be a credible, TO THEM, argument for not requiring background checks on private sales?
I'm serious, because I don't want anyone to know what I've got. Regardless of whether BATFE follows all the rules or not, I assume that anything transmitted using any electronic medium has been captured by something, or someone, somewhere.
In this circumstance, other than because I want it to be that way, what can one say to convince others that an individual is different in this respect than a business.
Because, as much as I would like it otherwise, if the current checks by FFL's are okay, I can't logically convince myself that it is unreasonable for me to go through the same process if I sell a gun to you as a private individual other than because I don't want to.
Forgive me if you've posted the answer to this question elsewhere:
Assuming that a person feels that the current background checks conducted by an FFL are legit, what would you say to them that would be a credible, TO THEM, argument for not requiring background checks on private sales?
I'm serious, because I don't want anyone to know what I've got. Regardless of whether BATFE follows all the rules or not, I assume that anything transmitted using any electronic medium has been captured by something, or someone, somewhere.
In this circumstance, other than because I want it to be that way, what can one say to convince others that an individual is different in this respect than a business.
Because, as much as I would like it otherwise, if the current checks by FFL's are okay, I can't logically convince myself that it is unreasonable for me to go through the same process if I sell a gun to you as a private individual other than because I don't want to.
And this is where I'm at. BCs are already something we all likely do, (except in the case I mentioned earlier) so if expanding the scope of that ONE thing would open the door to ALL the toys, then I'd have to seriously consider that.
The anti-gun argument is that UBC will keep guns out of the bad guy's hands. If that's the case, then the type of gun should be irrelevant. If the pro ubc crowd is being genuine and honest in that argument, then why would they oppose SBRs, cans, full autos, etc once the ubc is completed? I should be gtg.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Forgive me if you've posted the answer to this question elsewhere:
Assuming that a person feels that the current background checks conducted by an FFL are legit, what would you say to them that would be a credible, TO THEM, argument for not requiring background checks on private sales?
I'm serious, because I don't want anyone to know what I've got. Regardless of whether BATFE follows all the rules or not, I assume that anything transmitted using any electronic medium has been captured by something, or someone, somewhere.
In this circumstance, other than because I want it to be that way, what can one say to convince others that an individual is different in this respect than a business.
Because, as much as I would like it otherwise, if the current checks by FFL's are okay, I can't logically convince myself that it is unreasonable for me to go through the same process if I sell a gun to you as a private individual other than because I don't want to.
Because your responsibility as a private individual is only this. You cannot "knowingly" sell your property to a prohibited person. That it. You don't have to keep records, you don't have to get a copy of the guys CCW or drivers license. You don't have to make a bill of sale. And if you do any or all of that, it can actually be used as evidence to declare you and unlicensed gun dealer.
If ATF wants background checks, records of sale and all that, then they need to let private individuals obtain FFLs. This is what everyone did prior to 1986 because all through the Carter years the ATF was setting up stings to arrest private sellers who made profitable sales or trades.
FOPA created a clear distinction between FFLs and private individuals and set up protections for private individuals so they didn't have to operate kitchen table FFLs to cover their ass. Now ATF is ignoring virtually every part of FOPA except the closed registry. And after years of making it harder and harder for anyone to obtain a FFL if they are running a full service gun store, now ATF wants them to basically function as a FFL.
And you want to know what? It still won't protect you. Even if you do a background check, even if you transfer through a FFL, ATF has stated they can still prosecute you for being an unlicensed gun dealer if they believe that is what you are doing, even it it's just one gun.
Lots of great "compromises" posted since page one. Can I add a free .gov provided euthenasia program for all the leftists who wouldn't want to live anymore, because freedom is just too scary to endure?
sevenhelmet
06-24-16, 19:02
While I think your suggestion is better than anything being floated in Congress right now, I still think it's allowing infringements of a basic right the Constitution already provides us. The gun lobby should not give an inch. I think the key is for all the pro gun folks to keep calm and continue making logical counterpoints, so the hippie "sit in" types just continue to look like idiots.
Because your responsibility as a private individual is only this. You cannot "knowingly" sell your property to a prohibited person. That it. You don't have to keep records, you don't have to get a copy of the guys CCW or drivers license. You don't have to make a bill of sale. And if you do any or all of that, it can actually be used as evidence to declare you and unlicensed gun dealer.
If ATF wants background checks, records of sale and all that, then they need to let private individuals obtain FFLs. This is what everyone did prior to 1986 because all through the Carter years the ATF was setting up stings to arrest private sellers who made profitable sales or trades.
Thanks, I understand your perspective and remember it from one of your posts in another thread - sorry to make you repeat it and appreciate your response.
Thanks, I understand your perspective and remember it from one of your posts in another thread - sorry to make you repeat it and appreciate your response.
No worries. If we could get just get everyone to this realization and understanding, maybe we could stop having to talk about it at all.
If we had scuttled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the extent that the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 has been undermined, people would be burning down every major city.
The ACLU has sided with Republicans and the NRA in their opposition to so-called no fly, no buy legislation, saying that it's inconsistent with civil-liberties principles. The ACLU sent a letter to senators on Monday urging them to vote down the proposed amendments:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america
Eurodriver
06-26-16, 08:00
Interesting. I've never figured out why the ACLU has such a hard on for only 9 of the amendments on the Bill of Rights.
Interesting. I've never figured out why the ACLU has such a hard on for only 9 of the amendments on the Bill of Rights.
Well, they have their moments where they are more liberal than leftist.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-26-16, 08:46
Was listening to NPR today and it was a far more fair, but still ultimately flawed, discussion about guns. The reality of who actually gets shot and with which guns and how best to fight gun violence.
Was listening to NPR today and it was a far more fair, but still ultimately flawed, discussion about guns. The reality of who actually gets shot and with which guns and how best to fight gun violence.
Was a conclusion reached and, if so, what was it?
platoonDaddy
06-26-16, 12:07
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/ad176/slickville/GunsDontKeepYouSafe_zpstqafxsxo.jpg (http://s933.photobucket.com/user/slickville/media/GunsDontKeepYouSafe_zpstqafxsxo.jpg.html)
EDIT - The NRA should use this in one of their ads.
A dollar is a dollar but I hope life never gets to the point where I'd have to be one of those guys.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-26-16, 17:01
Was a conclusion reached and, if so, what was it?
That an AWB isn't a driver of overall deaths. Domestic violence, mental health and BGCs are what the parents of Newtown are supposedly pressing. Funny how I always hear the AWB mentioned too. Like I said, not all the right stuff, but at least something besides ban scary guns.
Or we could just blame him an nature, but whatever.
I heard an analogy today about Liberals and guns. Of all places NPR. Didn't hear the interview just the teaser. But his analogy was.
With respect to guns, Liberals are like dogs and vacuum cleaners. "Gun goes bang - guns bad"
this is like saying
coyotes in a hen house are great !!!!
no really I had a raccoon get to our hen house and a coyote came and killed it !!! so that means coyotes are good to keep in the hen house !
of course raccoons only eat the eggs and the coyote kills the chickens but hey the raccoon is gone and wont be eating my eggs !!!!
platoonDaddy
06-26-16, 18:14
'Top Gun' actress Kelly McGillis’ gang raped by three men, when she was 12. Dang and double dang and now she was attacked. She now has a carry permit, and getting heat from her twitter feed.
"For those of you on my feed that are telling me that getting a cc permit is not the best choice for me to make, well let me fill you in on a few things that have lead me to this decision. Which by the way, I have struggled over for a long long time. Not being pro gun fanatic. When I was 12 I was gang raped by three men."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/06/24/actress-kelly-mcgillis-attacked-at-north-carolina-home/86347504/
Ahh yes. Victim blaming. Where were all these twitter and facebook high horse heroes when she was getting accosted or getting raped as an adolescent?
Yeah, thought so.
I maintain that Ms. 45 would never get made today.
Agree with Euro re: privacy. This 41 ruling is madness and I don't even go into the Deep.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/21/google_paypal_and_hide_my_ass_vpn_join_fight_against_rule_41_change/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sevenhelmet
06-27-16, 09:30
I maintain that Ms. 45 would never get made today.
You're right. Instead we get crappy sequels. I predict "Taken 4", starred by the rabid anti-gunner, Liam Neeson, who uses a plastic swimming pool noodle to intimidate his daughter's kidnappers, until he realizes that her assailants identify as criminals, so he forgives them, stops his micro-aggression, and everybody sits around the campfire and sings Kum-Ba-Yah together. :bad:
Back on topic,
Re: ACLU- I was shocked they spoke out against the no-fly list gun ban, until I read their position letter. Oh, got it, they still believe in gun restrictions. Never mind, they're still a bunch of sheltered hippies who would all go see Taken 4, even though the real version would no doubt involve Hollywood-esque gun play.:rolleyes:
Moose-Knuckle
07-20-16, 18:42
Want to make America safe again? Ban assault rifles
Five law enforcement officers shot to death in Dallas. Three officers killed in Baton Rouge.
Let's not pretend that the Black Lives Matter movement is responsible for these murders. The real culprits are assault weapons.
Yeap, those "assault weapons" loaded themselves, drove themsleves to the place where all those LEOs were, aimed themselves, engaged their own charging handles, manipulated their own safeties, and depressed their own triggers repeatedly.
It is easy to get sidetracked and misplace our anger on the peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters who are simply exercising their rights under the First Amendment. Ironically, much of that anger comes from people who adamantly support the Second Amendment — as if one section of the Constitution is more important than another.
So #BLM militants haven't murdered NYC, Houston, Dallas, and Baton Rouge LEOs? Never mind the #BLM chants calling for the killing of LEOs at various protests across the country.
No Americans need to be able to walk around with rifles equipped with telescoping stocks, barrel shrouds, and detachable magazines.
So a rifle with a side folding stock or a standard stock is cool? Got it. I have no idea what a "barrel shroud" is but these anti gun 02 thieves repeat it often and I have no idea how a barrel shroud makes killing people easier and I don't they do either.
Perhaps there isn't much that could have been done to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of Micah Xavier Johnson, the shooter in Dallas, or Gavin Long, the gunman in Baton Rouge. Both were highly trained military veterans who didn't need loopholes to obtain high-powered weapons. Though clearly they suffered from mental disorders, there likely was nothing in their medical history that would have presented a red flag.
See black militantism and racism had nothing to do with these LEO assassinations it was merely PTSD. Veterans need not apply their 2nd Amendment rights.
Indeed, law-abiding citizens, such as Johnson and Long, are the ones Second Amendment laws are designed to protect. Only a federal ban on assault rifles and other semi-automatic weapons could have kept them from obtaining such high-powered weapons.
Right, kind of like the "federal ban" on things like narcotics and murder prevent such crimes from transpiring.
dglanton@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @dahleeng
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-police-shootings-republicans-glanton-20160718-column.html
Mean while in the city with the most gun control . . .
2016 Chicago Murders
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
Averageman
07-20-16, 18:48
Like banning drugs which is tied to many of those same Chicago murders has worked so well?
Like your unconstitutional gun control in Chicago has worked so well?
Like your leftist progressives views that have bankrupt not only Chicago, but the State of Illinois that have worked so well?
You knuckleheads have built the nest you live in and still cant figure out why it is such a failure, but you would love to export it to the rest of us in Free States?
Dummy.
Inkslinger
07-20-16, 18:58
If the anti gun crowd is so concerned with protecting life, why do they go after a type of gun responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths, while not going after the handguns responsible for the other 99%?
Eurodriver
07-20-16, 19:02
If the anti gun crowd is so concerned with protecting life, why do they go after a type of gun responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths, while not going after the handguns responsible for the other 99%?
LOL PROTECTING LIFE LOLOLOLOL
Old boy in the OP referred to killing LEOs as a "first amendment right". They don't give a shit about protecting life.
Inkslinger
07-20-16, 19:06
LOL PROTECTING LIFE LOLOLOLOL
Old boy in the OP referred to killing LEOs as a "first amendment right". They don't give a shit about protecting life.
I admit, I didn't read the OP. I saw "ban assault rifles" and my eyes rolled back in my head. I just ass u me d it was typical anti gun rhetoric.
sevenhelmet
07-20-16, 19:13
I admit, I didn't read the OP. I saw "ban assault rifles" and my eyes rolled back in my head. I just ass u me d it was typical anti gun rhetoric.
It is the typical gun rhetoric. Don't we already have 100 threads like this?
Unless someone has a new argument that can magically convince these ignoramuses of the error of their ways (the current arguments clearly aren't cutting the mustard), then what is this but an exercise in futility and getting bent out of shape over something that is old hat? After all, I think everyone here is in agreement that we have the right to own guns and that's a good thing.
On a better note, I saw today that Congress is in recess, with no new anti-gun legislation passed. So on a national level at least (Fvck you, Kalifornia!) we aren't getting worse in the immediate future. Take the little victories, fellas- the long game is won one day at a time.
Outlander Systems
07-20-16, 19:15
The problem is that the Politics of the 2A are always played on the defensive.
What the actual **** ever happened to the hearing protection act?
BoringGuy45
07-20-16, 19:16
They can lick my sweaty balls. I'm not even going to give them a reason why they're wrong, because they know why they're wrong.
sevenhelmet
07-20-16, 19:16
The problem is that the Politics of the 2A are always on the defensive.
What the actual **** ever happened to the hearing protection act?
That's a good point. For every 10 threads like this, I wish I could read just one that has to do with some pro-gun legislation that is being proposed/voted on/passed. After all, the best defense...
Outlander Systems
07-20-16, 19:26
Absolutely.
I would be willing to bet gun ownership has expanded tremendously in the last 8 years.
How the Sporter Clause hasn't been kicked curbside, and how not blowing my eardrums out requires that I pay a tax is insane.
That's a good point. For every 10 threads like this, I wish I could read just one that has to do with some pro-gun legislation that is being proposed/voted on/passed. After all, the best defense...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.