Marty Daniels, Owner of Daniel Defense, goes full gun control.

[TomMcC]

I suppose that prior restraint isn't actually an infringement. What we'll do to feel safe in an unsafe world.

[MountainRaven]

How do you spell, "fudd"?

F you, DD.

[Dist. Expert 26]

How do you spell, "fudd"?

F you, DD.

We may not agree on much, but that's pretty good.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

SO, we sit here and say don't take our guns, fix the mental health system, blah blah blah. Then somebody actually supports a bill that actually could help in keeping new guns out of the hands of mentally ill and you freak out. LOL! We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I support a system that prevents crazy people and criminals from buying guns at the gun store. We can'r prevent private or illegal sales, but we can stop nutso from getting guns at the store.

[Digital_Damage]

SO, we sit here and say don't take our guns, fix the mental health system, blah blah blah. Then somebody actually supports a bill that actually could help in keeping new guns out of the hands of mentally ill and you freak out. LOL! We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I support a system that prevents crazy people and criminals from buying guns at the gun store. We can'r prevent private or illegal sales, but we can stop nutso from getting guns at the store.

Yep... Lots of hypocrisy rolling around in here the last few months.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It's not. What's bad is the optics of a prominent gun manufacturer supporting a "gun control" bill. It's going to cost him business and give the left more ammunition. "See, even assault weapon manufacturers think we need gun control".

It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).

Then get those amendments in there before we push it. As a rabid gun owner I actually don’t hate the NICS system and feel it is a good compromise. I do have a problem with something this open ended being pushed by people in the gun industry.

With all the talk of mental health lately this bill has the potential to block a lot of people unjustly from purchasing firearms. I am actually behind the idea of fixing the NICS system and making it more accurate. But it has to be done right.

GOA and a couple other groups posted a pretty good analysis of why this is a dangerous bill as written. It can be expanded too easily though interpretation. And we know how dangerous that is.

I don't know the details, and I'd like to see the what the problem is. I do think that no law would ever be acceptable to some people because they think that the local PoPo is just waiting to get their guns. People have to have some serious head trash to think that they are that close to crazy that someone will come and take your guns. Look at Parkland. Look at the states with laws in place already. Do people think that they are that indiscernible from that kind of crazy?

This is were anti-social A-holes hide behind the libertarian label.

[Averageman]

SO, we sit here and say don't take our guns, fix the mental health system, blah blah blah. Then somebody actually supports a bill that actually could help in keeping new guns out of the hands of mentally ill and you freak out. LOL! We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I support a system that prevents crazy people and criminals from buying guns at the gun store. We can'r prevent private or illegal sales, but we can stop nutso from getting guns at the store.

I got this email from DD the other day on my phone and because of the size of the type I couldn't read the message, so thanks for posting this.
I'm not surprised Marty Daniels went this route and I can't say that I disagree with him. I believe a couple of DD guns were inside the hotel room with the Las Vegas shooter, so we don't know what legal stuff he may be dealing with.

I will say this though; My wife works in an ER at the VA. Everyday I worry about her working inside a gun free zone and every day I hear from her about some of the patients she deals with. Most of the folks she deals with have severe substance abuse issues and some level of PTSD, which concerns me a lot.
Of course yesterday a Vet with PTSD comes in and shoots up a care center in Ca., that part of that care center was specifically for PTSD patients.
I dunno another answer at this point, the VA isn't going to let her carry her G-19, the Veterans she works with aren't going to become better overnight and the States seem to be dropping the ball when it comes to reporting.

So good people, gun people, are either going to pay the entire price for the lunatic fringe or we are going to have one of these shooting every couple of weeks. Forcing the States to comply with the laws already on the books seems a lot smarter than much of what has been put forward. I will have to agree with Marty at this point.

[Dist. Expert 26]

It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).

At what point will you stop promoting the delusion that "we" are controlling any of this? Diane Feinstein supports this bill. If that doesn't tell you who's really in control nothing will.

Not saying the bill is all bad, it's not. Just pointing out some cognitive dissonance.

[wildcard600]

It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).

the NICS bill being talked about NOW is NOT the same as the one that was attached to the reciprocity bill from last year.

[jpmuscle]

It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).





I don't know the details, and I'd like to see the what the problem is. I do think that no law would ever be acceptable to some people because they think that the local PoPo is just waiting to get their guns. People have to have some serious head trash to think that they are that close to crazy that someone will come and take your guns. Look at Parkland. Look at the states with laws in place already. Do people think that they are that indiscernible from that kind of crazy?

This is were anti-social A-holes hide behind the libertarian label.

There you go again with this omg we have to do something before it’s done to us nonsense. Just sit in the corner and color.

I’ll make this as succinct as possible. With respect to mental health issues and legitimate issues of violence risk NICS is not necessarily the problem. The dismissal of due process is.

A practitioner identifies someone as a viable risk, cool, follow due process and get a judge to sign off on it, whilst putting actionable mechanisms in place to permit restoration of rights after the fact.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk