This is topic Senator Catches NRA Head In Epic Flip Flop in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/006984.html

Posted by raybond on :
 
Senator Catches NRA Head In Epic Flip Flop

By Igor Volsky and Annie-Rose Strasser on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:47

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) caught National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in a significant contradiction during Wednesday’s hearing on preventing gun violence. Since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut the nation’s most influential gun lobby has opposed the growing bipartisan push for universal background checks, arguing that such a policy would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. But as Leahy pointed out, the group has supported the reasonable background checks in the past.

Under current law, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks. Gun safety advocates have sought to close the loophole for years and in the 1999, the NRA backed this effort.

“We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show,” LaPierre said during a hearing held on May 27, 1999, in the wake of the Columbine High School shooting. “No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system.”

Leahy pressed LaPierre on why the organization has since changed its mind:


LEAHY: Do you still, as you did in 1999, still support mandatory background checks at gun shows? Yes or no?

LAPIERRE: We support the national check system on dealers. We were here when one of your colleagues held the hearings in terms of who would be a dealer and who would be required to have a license. If you did it for live the good and profit, yes. If you did it for a hobby, no. [...]

LEAHY: You do not support background checks in all instances at gun shows?

LAPIERRE: We do not, because the fact is, the law right now is a failure the way it is working. You have 76,000 people that have been denied under the present law. Only 44 were prosecuted. You are letting them go. They’re walking the street.

LEAHY: Back in 1999, you said no loopholes anywhere for anyone. But now you do not support a background checks for all buyers of firearms?

LAPIERRE: The system the way it is working now is a failure. This administration is not prosecuting the people they catch. 22 states are not even putting the mental records of those adjudicated incompetent into the system. If they try to buy a gun, even if you catch them, and they try to walk away, you let them. They are criminals, homicidal maniacs, can’t mentally ill — and mentally ill. We all know that, maniacs and the mentally insane do not abide by the law.


While NRA leadership opposes universal background checks, its members back the change. A national survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University found that “89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.”

Here is a copy of the ad the NRA took out in 1999 saying, “We think it’s reasonable to provide for instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops.”

The NRA broke its commitment to support background checks for “every sale” and lobbied for a watered down provision in 1999.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
here's the real problem ray:

"You have 76,000 people that have been denied under the present law. Only 44 were prosecuted. You are letting them go. They’re walking the street."

the most interesting issue her is where the 40% number comes from.. its made up out of thin air, this ifromte hWash Post, not exaclty a Conervative outfit:

rather than being 30 to 40 percent (the original estimate of the range) or “up to 40 percent” (Obama’s words), gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent. And since the survey sample is so small, that means the results have a survey caveat: plus or minus six percentage points.

Moreover, as we noted before, the survey was taken in late 1994, eight months after the Brady law went into effect, and the questions were asked about gun purchases in the previous two years. So some of the answers concerned gun purchases that took place in a pre-Brady environment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-back ground-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672 f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

most importantly? NO real assult weapons heve been sold without a fingerprinting and full background check AND a transfer tax stamp fee since the 30's when the real assault weapon restrictions were put in place...

admit it the anti-gun lobby is bunch of liars, and they don't care about Citiznes Rights at all...
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
january gallop poll shows 91% of americans favor back ground checks.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-vio lence.aspx
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i bet the same numebr of people expect the govt to prosecute people who apply lie on them too, but hey aren't being prosecuted. no mention of the questionable data? i haven't been to a gun show since about 94 or 95, but i did buy a gun directly from custom manufacturer this year. since it was out of state/ i had the gun shipped to local FFL and they conducted the backgorund check for us and charged me $25. most people are agreeable t this system...

suppose i decide to sell one of my firearms to a private purchaser? i can got the gun dealer and get the process done for $25 too? that's fine by me...

76,000 people that have been denied under the present law. Only 44 were prosecuted.

prosecute those people.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
Sounds like the system is working pretty good to me.....76,000 people that shouldn't have been allowed to purchase a gun, WEREN'T allowed to purchase a gun.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
Here is another fact ray...

I don't care how many laws you pass, ANYONE can go to ANY large city in ANY state and purchase a gun at ANYTIME without ANY type of background check, and that fact is NEVER going to change...

I don't want bad guys to have guns any more than you do, but the fact is THEY DO!!!!
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
yeah. they've done such a great job getting drugs off the streets by banning them.....

wtf are they thinking? [More Crap]

welcome back my friends to the show that never ends... the "war on guns" will be so much more effective.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Originally Posted By Buckstalker:

Here is another fact ray...

I don't care how many laws you pass, ANYONE can go to ANY large city in ANY state and purchase a gun at ANYTIME without ANY type of background check, and that fact is NEVER going to change...

I don't want bad guys to have guns any more than you do, but the fact is THEY DO!!!!
------------------------------------------------

I think that after they take more rights away from us by inacting more gun laws, there will still be more shootings.

Anyone here want to bet me that there won't be?

-
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
no i won't take that bet, because you are right.
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
You have to start somewhere we have listen to you guys side for years. Two facts to many guns get into the wrong hands in this country why make it easier for that to happen and nobody is taking your right to purchase a gun.

You will always have away a criminal can get his hands on a gun. Thats not going to stop society from closeing down the avenues for criminals and making it harder for them.


This movement that is going on now will just get stronger if things don't change now the will later the public polls are now against you and thats a fact and the NRA is running out of steam.

You can call anybody you want all the names you want and act like a 12 year old but that will not stop what is started and that will not stop people from trying to do something.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
What makes things worst, is that once the gov. takes rights away from us, (by making new laws to protect us) and we find out later that it didn't really help to solve the problem, they will never give us back those rights.

That's why we really need to think twice before we ever ask the gov. to protect us.

-
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Originally Posted by Raybond:

You have to start somewhere we have listen to you guys side for years. Two facts to many guns get into the wrong hands in this country why make it easier for that to happen and nobody is taking your right to purchase a gun.

You will always have away a criminal can get his hands on a gun. Thats not going to stop society from closeing down the avenues for criminals and making it harder for them.


This movement that is going on now will just get stronger if things don't change now the will later the public polls are now against you and thats a fact and the NRA is running out of steam.

You can call anybody you want all the names you want and act like a 12 year old but that will not stop what is started and that will not stop people from trying to do something.
-------------------------------------------------

I really think your going to get your wish.

But i think it's going to be a hugh mistake.

I don't think it's going to make much differance in a long run, other than making our country more of a police state.

The older we get the more we should see how are rights erode over time. Many younger people have gotten use to less rights, because they have never known anything different. Many older people feel they need more protection, because they are older.

You can get plenty of protection in some other governments, especially if you are a certain few, but do we really want this type of government?

I know you come from a different work background than most of us, but watch out what you ask for, when thinking about our future generations!

-
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
The biggest problem i have with most liberals, is that they are emotionally driven idealists....not rational thinking realists

Think long and hard about this ray.... you are WILLING to give up yet another one your freedoms to solve a problem...when in fact, giving up that freedom will NOT solve the problem that you gave up the freedom for...

That is not rational thinking...it is just plain STUPID!!!!
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
I don't think I am giving up any rights if I was a criminal I would be not only fire arms but the right to vote.

not rational thinking is to say anybody who wants a fire arm can have one even though they have the attitude of harming people with it.

We cannot have our society run like this anymore.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
how about prosecuting the people who already broke the law then?

i've already shown you that the 40% number is BS, and that is according the washington post, not Fox news. leahy uses whatever numebrs are convenient to him instead of actually finding out what is really going on.

if you look at NYC and Chicago and compare the crime stats there? it is prosecutions that have gotten the guns out of the criminals hands. Also? NYC has a stop and search policy that will be found uncosntitutional eventually.. they allow thecops there to invent probable cause, and it is a amtter of policy. this is the big brother thing going amock.. just likebanninf large soft drinks.. you really agree with that? it's more than just a Nanny state, it's ridiculous.

and when fast adn furious was runing? they were LETTING straw purchases go thru on purpose..

so don't tell me we need more laws, we need actual enforcement first.

it's like illegal aliens. it IS ILLEGAL to be here and undocumented, but it is not poilticaly correct to say that. i've shown you the laws on the books right here at allsotocks, they go unenforced... in fact, they refuse to enforce many of the laws regarding illegals here, and the problem just gets worse, we don't even enforce mos tof the laws concerng this. as to attacking the NRA for their position on this? that's just more politcs.
 
Posted by rounder1 on :
 
All that really needs to be said on this issue was stated by Ben Franklin a couple hundred years ago:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Key words in the above quote: Essential/Temporary

and I would add to that:

They will possess neither for very long.

Free your mind from fear and you will no longer feel the need to look past your own ability to provide your security.

It is a fool that modifies his behaviour to coexist with a threat....a fool that will take action to circumvent a minor threat without considering the unintended consequences of undertaking such an action.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Originally Posted By Rounder1:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
_________________________________________________

And you are not just getting a little temporary safety, you are also creating a different type of threat... Gov.

-
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
The biggest problem i have with most liberals, is that they are emotionally driven idealists....not rational thinking realists

Think long and hard about this ray.... you are WILLING to give up yet another one your freedoms to solve a problem...when in fact, giving up that freedom will NOT solve the problem that you gave up the freedom for...

That is not rational thinking...it is just plain STUPID!!!!

EXACTLY
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
What a joke! They just now release a photo like this? How ironic! This one isnt photo-shopped though lmao, photoshop and video editing seems to be very popular these days.


W.H. Releases Photo of Obama Shooting a Gun

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-releases-photo-obama-shooting-gun_699234. html

 -
 
Posted by rounder1 on :
 
Forgive any poor typing please.... doin this one from a phone.

I do understand the people that believe we have reached a point in our evolution, as a society, to where we should be okay with not being armed.... I get that. However its a romantic notion..... not based in reality. The truth is that an unarmed populace will be exploited. It might not happen if we were unarmed under Obama.... hell it may take a generation and happen under a GOP president.... but I will bet my ballz that if U.S. citizens ever surrender our 2nd amendment right..... it will be exploited.

Paranoia?... perhaps...... but society after society bears testement to that truth.

The founders new tyranny first hand..... that's why the 2nd exists..... that is its entire purpose......

Governments... no matter how just..... are entities of power. They use the power they have in an effort to secure more power and security..... that's not an accusation..... it just a natural state. "Power corrupts.... absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
Posted by jordanreed on :
 
wake up...this society is armed to the teeth..(no one is talking about taking guns away btw). We are already being exploited. Guns don't help you retain your freedoms..they are already gone. Why don't you ppl see if your guns will get them back? Your 2nd amendment is intact. assault weapons are for assault. You want to assault someone? Go buy a bazooka..you can ..just have to jump through all the hoops and qualify.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Originally Posted By Jordanreed:

wake up...this society is armed to the teeth..(no one is talking about taking guns away btw). We are already being exploited. Guns don't help you retain your freedoms..they are already gone. Why don't you ppl see if your guns will get them back? Your 2nd amendment is intact. assault weapons are for assault. You want to assault someone? Go buy a bazooka..you can ..just have to jump through all the hoops and qualify.

--------------------
Assualt weapon does not mean they use them necessarily for assualt, you can use them any way you want.

Again, do you really think that it will make any differance in randon killings?

Guns do help you retain you freedoms,so do other weapons, governments have known that for a long time, why do you think they keep developing new weapons?

We should ban everyting that does harm, including that computer your using, smoking etc.

I have a problem with all the banning and restrictions, even though many of them i don't do or use.

I feel that everytime we take a small part of of freedom away, we head closer towards a Gov. that seizes complete control of the majority.

-
 
Posted by jordanreed on :
 
you have the freedom to own guns!...military weapons are for the military. Your guns don't stand a chance against the military. what freedom will a gun help you keep? remember waco? We have a well-armed. well-trained militia already....why do u feel the need to own military type assault weapons?....You aint in the army no mo...get over it. They aren't talking about banning your guns for godssake! They do great harm..but you can still own them. Btw,smoking is banned in most places nowadays...but you can still smoke, even tho it does harm. This is just not a big deal! Yes , I hate restriction also...but this is a necessary one. Why?..Because SOMETHING has to be done!! Guns are out of control..sure enforce the laws better, better checks and balances etc....but also ban some weapons that the ordinary citizen has no logical use for.Unless you think killing as many things as possible in as short of time conceivable is logical. I don't, unless I'm in the military and at war against an aggressive enemy that wants to kill me! Again...your ability to own guns isn't infringed upon...only certain types,,as well it should be.
 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
Well, the PC police are at it again.

Suspended for picture of a gun: Student Daniel McClaine Jr. hassled for computer desktop background

FLORENCE, AZ - A high school student in Florence, Arizona said he has been suspended because of a picture of a gun.
Daniel McClaine Jr., a freshman at Poston Butte High School, said he saved the picture as his desktop background on his school-issued computer.
A teacher noticed it and turned him in.
The picture shows an AK-47 on top of a flag.
McClaine said the school initially suspended him for three days Friday.


Read more: http://www.wptv.com//dpp/news/national/suspended-for-picture-of-a-gun-student-da niel-mcclaine-jr-hassled-for-computer-desktop-background#ixzz2JsHaQ0pR
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
Jordan....please "enlighten" me on exactly what attributes a gun must have to be classified as an "assault weapon?
Also clarify what "types" of guns we shouldn't be "allowed" to own

Is an AR-15 an assault weapon?
Is a semi-automatic 30-06 an assault weapon?
Is a 12 gauge shotgun an assault weapon?
Is a semi-auto 22 caliber rifle an assault weapon?
How about a semi-auto pistol?
Have you ever shot any of the above?
Have you ever owned any of the above?
Do you know the ballistics characteristics of any of the above?
Do you know the effective range of any of the above?

To have such a strong opposition to certain "types" of guns, you certainly must know the answers to the above questions...

Also...please explain to me how banning a law abiding citizen like myself from owning an AR-15 or any other "type" of gun is going to stop a NON law abiding criminal from acquiring one...


"
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
you have the freedom to own guns!...military weapons are for the military. Your guns don't stand a chance against the military. what freedom will a gun help you keep? remember waco? We have a well-armed. well-trained militia already....why do u feel the need to own military type assault weapons?....You aint in the army no mo...get over it. They aren't talking about banning your guns for godssake! They do great harm..but you can still own them. Btw,smoking is banned in most places nowadays...but you can still smoke, even tho it does harm. This is just not a big deal! Yes , I hate restriction also...but this is a necessary one. Why?..Because SOMETHING has to be done!! Guns are out of control..sure enforce the laws better, better checks and balances etc....but also ban some weapons that the ordinary citizen has no logical use for.Unless you think killing as many things as possible in as short of time conceivable is logical. I don't, unless I'm in the military and at war against an aggressive enemy that wants to kill me! Again...your ability to own guns isn't infringed upon...only certain types,,as well it should be.


 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
Jordan....please "enlighten" me on exactly what attributes a gun must have to be classified as an "assault weapon?
Also clarify what "types" of guns we shouldn't be "allowed" to own

Is an AR-15 an assault weapon?
Is a semi-automatic 30-06 an assault weapon?
Is a 12 gauge shotgun an assault weapon?
Is a semi-auto 22 caliber rifle an assault weapon?
How about a semi-auto pistol?
Have you ever shot any of the above?
Have you ever owned any of the above?
Do you know the ballistics characteristics of any of the above?
Do you know the effective range of any of the above?

To have such a strong opposition to certain "types" of guns, you certainly must know the answers to the above questions...

Also...please explain to me how banning a law abiding citizen like myself from owning an AR-15 or any other "type" of gun is going to stop a NON law abiding criminal from acquiring one...


"
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
you have the freedom to own guns!...military weapons are for the military. Your guns don't stand a chance against the military. what freedom will a gun help you keep? remember waco? We have a well-armed. well-trained militia already....why do u feel the need to own military type assault weapons?....You aint in the army no mo...get over it. They aren't talking about banning your guns for godssake! They do great harm..but you can still own them. Btw,smoking is banned in most places nowadays...but you can still smoke, even tho it does harm. This is just not a big deal! Yes , I hate restriction also...but this is a necessary one. Why?..Because SOMETHING has to be done!! Guns are out of control..sure enforce the laws better, better checks and balances etc....but also ban some weapons that the ordinary citizen has no logical use for.Unless you think killing as many things as possible in as short of time conceivable is logical. I don't, unless I'm in the military and at war against an aggressive enemy that wants to kill me! Again...your ability to own guns isn't infringed upon...only certain types,,as well it should be.


You do realize who you are asking these questions to.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Originally Posted By Jordanreed:

you have the freedom to own guns!...military weapons are for the military. Your guns don't stand a chance against the military. what freedom will a gun help you keep? remember waco? We have a well-armed. well-trained militia already....why do u feel the need to own military type assault weapons?....You aint in the army no mo...get over it. They aren't talking about banning your guns for godssake! They do great harm..but you can still own them. Btw,smoking is banned in most places nowadays...but you can still smoke, even tho it does harm. This is just not a big deal! Yes , I hate restriction also...but this is a necessary one. Why?..Because SOMETHING has to be done!! Guns are out of control..sure enforce the laws better, better checks and balances etc....but also ban some weapons that the ordinary citizen has no logical use for.Unless you think killing as many things as possible in as short of time conceivable is logical. I don't, unless I'm in the military and at war against an aggressive enemy that wants to kill me! Again...your ability to own guns isn't infringed upon...only certain types,,as well it should be.
_________________________________________________

First place is, i don't own a gun, haven't touched one since 1970, and i don't feel the need or want to own one.

But, just because i don't feel the need to own one, doesn't mean that right should be taken away from someone who does, and is law abiding.

So what your saying is, as long as any citizen doesn't like something that some other citizen does, that right should be taken away!

That's like saying, it's all about me, and there is plenty of that going around in the world today.

And by the way, i don't smoke anything.

I know you do, because you mentioned it many times here before.

Do you stop smoking because it's illegal? (and i ain't talking about those regular smokes) Do you think criminals will stop purchasing these guns because there illegal... Fat chance

So what is your point?

There are a lot easier ways to kill people than with a a gun, and you can make the stuff right at home.

What guns don't stand a chance against the military? Is it all about who's got the biggest and best arsenal? In a perfect military world it would be? But i know different, as you mentioned above

What freedom is taken away? The freedom that i have a right to bear arms.

So you think the killing will stop with a ban on whatever guns they finally ban, if not all, eventually... good luck

You just don't get it, it's all about taking a little of this right away and a little of that right, just for our safety.

Read Carefully what Rounder1 said and maybe you will get the jist!

-
 
Posted by rounder1 on :
 
I am not a gun enthusiast. Given the area of the country in which I live, I am very under armed. I have about 5 guns total now and none of them would be subject to any of the proposed legislation/executive orders that I have heard of....I did have about about 5 other rifles and a shotgun, but I lost them in a house fire a little over a year ago.....along with everything else that was not in one storage unit or another.

That may sound like a lot of guns....but really for the Southeast my arsenal would generally be considered quite pathetic. I used to be an avid whitetail hunter....not so much anymore.....I don't own enough land to really hunt and membership dues for clubs just got to dang high. Mainly due to hunters from Florida coming up and leasing the land for hunting...drove the value up....Good for the land owners....bad for the poor redneck that like to hunt [Were Down]

Jordan, here is the thing. You told me to wake up.....I will tell you to quit being so damn selfish. Just because the citizenry today may not need a gun to protect themselves that does not mean that the citizenry of tomorrow won't. Protecting oneself is every individuals RIGHT. Even people that will not be born until 100 years from now have that right. You exist in the present...obviously... and as such, whether you accept it or not, are charged with being a steward of those rights until such time that you pass away and the responsibility of that burden passes to the next generation. Times and circumstances change....domestic peace today does not assure domestic peace tomorrow.

I understand that you are venting a little bit because you can't understand why a peaceful society clings to guns....its because we like being peaceful. I understand that you think that its futile to believe private gun ownership could thwart a military....but trust me as awesome as our military is....its our 2nd amendment and our exercise of it that has kept this country from being invaded at various points throughout our history.

Think about it this way....everyone agrees that bullying is wrong and we want it stopped.....everyone wants that. We do things, make rules, start programs, report people, etc....ad nauseum. Bullies will always exist and they will always find the weaker among us. Oftentimes, it is the presence of weakness that either invites or creates the bully....blood draws sharks. The best way to stop or prevent bullying is to promote strength in the weak....

If you can agree that the the above is fairly accurate on an idividual level....all you need to do is change the scale and recognize that the same logic holds true at a societal level.

Do not forfeit a strength and invite a bully.

I really do appreciate your frustration with the topic and I hope you appreciate mine as well. Its not just about giving up an assault rifle or a 30 round clip (I don't own either of those)....its about not allowing an inroad. People can't keep drawing lines in the sand only to back up and draw another once the first one is crossed. Thats how you make a comedy sketch...not how you live life.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
you have the freedom to own guns!...military weapons are for the military. Your guns don't stand a chance against the military. what freedom will a gun help you keep? remember waco? We have a well-armed. well-trained militia already....why do u feel the need to own military type assault weapons?....You aint in the army no mo...get over it. They aren't talking about banning your guns for godssake! They do great harm..but you can still own them. Btw,smoking is banned in most places nowadays...but you can still smoke, even tho it does harm. This is just not a big deal! Yes , I hate restriction also...but this is a necessary one. Why?..Because SOMETHING has to be done!! Guns are out of control..sure enforce the laws better, better checks and balances etc....but also ban some weapons that the ordinary citizen has no logical use for.Unless you think killing as many things as possible in as short of time conceivable is logical. I don't, unless I'm in the military and at war against an aggressive enemy that wants to kill me! Again...your ability to own guns isn't infringed upon...only certain types,,as well it should be.

this IS the crux of th eissue jordan, great post.

we "the people" do not stand a chance against eh military. you nailed the whole issue down in one sentnce.

the "thing" is ? my kids and my families kids ARE the Miltiary, I am the military.
The military will take orders to subdue people who do not fight it. That's easy... they will follow orders where they are convinced that it's for the good of the poeple...

but, and her's why you cannot take the guns away from the people; Armed people will actaully say NO!. where unarmed will not. it really is that simple.... the US military (as a whole) will not fire on Civilians i am very confident of that, too many of them come from small towns. there are peole in the miltiary who WILL fire on civvies, and they are being recruited right out of the miltiary into these "contractor" outfits... that is hwo you should most certainly be afriad of, very afraid, they know the people they want and ht epay them very well, so that they have alot to lose if they refuse thir orders.
it really is about a state of mind. guns do not kill people. other people kill people. the "assault rifle" that you thin you know is NOT an asault rifle, period.

the guns they want to ban would NEVER be used by spec forces to perform an assualt by a well financed outfit. period. they are private militia weapons, and we certainly do have the right to own them..... and that was the intent of the Founders. and should remain so...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
the Whiskey Rebellion was the first major internal conflict in the US. everybody gets taught about it in school, but what they DONOT tell you in school is that George Washington who put down the tax rebellion was the largest distiller of whiskey in the new US AND because he was a large producer, he paid a muchlower flat tax instead of the higher tax on the little guys...
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
20 minuets 4 assault rifles with no background check


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/04/1534871/internet-gun-sales/
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
20 minuets 4 assault rifles with no background check


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/04/1534871/internet-gun-sales/

Only one problem with your post there Rayboy...
It aint TRUE!!! Those are NOT assault rifles...PERIOD
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
picky picky picky bucky
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by buckstalker:
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
20 minuets 4 assault rifles with no background check


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/04/1534871/internet-gun-sales/

Only one problem with your post there Rayboy...
It aint TRUE!!! Those are NOT assault rifles...PERIOD

LOL, great site, i checked, and i can buy a silencer on that site, which is an assault weapon, but of course i'd have to go thru a complete BI and get printed AND get signed off by my local sherrif... i din;t see any assault weapons for sale without Background checks either... ar-15's have doubled since they started talking about banning them again...
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
picky picky picky bucky

Yeah...I'm funny that way...especially when a bold faced liar like yourself, is attempting to post blatant lies to further his/her agenda
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
Can someone please explain to me how banning certain "types" of weapons from law abiding citizens, is going to "prevent" NON law abiding criminals from acquiring them?
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
They will get their law past, and they knew when to push it. Most don't know what guns they are talking about, and most really don't care.

When the criminals come to their house with a banned weapon, they can tell them how illegal it is, i am sure they will care.

-
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
It may sound strange to you guys but I don't want to semi auto guns banned. or really what is the difference a 10 round mag vs a twenty. And I don't think they can get that or a gun bann. I do think they will get a complete and well done back ground check.
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
You are right Iwish..."they" are going to make this country a more dangerous place and ...they" are in fact going to be responsible for the deaths of more children and innocents by NOT dealing with the problem...

The only way to protect our children is the same way we protect the president, movie stars and the other "important" people in our society.

If they believe that banning "assault" weapons is going to protect our children, then I challenge "them" to stop using ARMED guards to protect themselves once the ban is in place
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
It may sound strange to you guys but I don't want to semi auto guns banned. or really what is the difference a 10 round mag vs a twenty. And I don't think they can get that or a gun bann. I do think they will get a complete and well done back ground check.

Criminals DON'T buy guns legally Ray, nor do they worry about background checks...they purchase guns illegally on the street or steal them....

Therefore...more background checks will do NOTHING to solve the problem...

But this ISN'T about solving the problem or making our children safer is it Ray?

This is simply about more GOVERNMENT CONTROL and people like you are so brainwashed, that you are willing to freely give it to them...

You don't deserve the freedoms you still have...
 
Posted by jordanreed on :
 
criminals didn't go into these schools or malls or what have you and start shooting. They were law-abiding citizens with access to weapons of mass killing power. You. my friend, are the one brainwashed. I will state again..YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IN INTACT!!!...a shotgun blast to the chest of an intruder will stop him cold. Ive never read or heard of a criminal entering a common, law-abiding citizens house and open up with an uzi...have you? Doubt it. no rights are being taken away!...If you really need that kind of weapon, you have the ability to purchase one..providing you qualify to own one. same with flame throwers, bazookas, etc...and if you give me a month or so ,I can probably get u what you need illegally. But why would you need it?And if you do need them? something is amiss in your brain to think you do. Don't u think that if Joe Blow down the street has a stockpile of those types of weapons,(all purchased legally now) that maybe he should be concedred a little nuts and kept an eye on? Common sense says yes. See, its about common sense. Common sense says that if you like to hunt animals, that you should have some hunting weapons. Don't forget..we are a society of rules, laws and regulations. The more we advance, so should those. It seems you lack the common sense to understand that. But , you know what?...Your not in my little world and never will be (thank god), So you hunker down with all your weapons and protect your perceived freedoms. But stay the fuk away from me cuz you give off a scary, crazy vibe. ick. [BadOne]
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
jordan,
you begin by saying that mass-murderes are not criminals. i stopped reading there.
i expect better from you...
just to make fine point on th esubject? the snady hook shooter killed his mom and stole the guns from her. he was not even of legal age yet, and had been rejected by legit gun dealers.
and this kid was apparently smart enough to go under the kitchen sink and make a "poison bomb" that would have done the job even better. beleive me it IS possible and with common houshold stuff, i'm no mcgyver, but i know enough chemistry to know our houses are full of wmd if we just mix them up, remeber that you are not allowed more than couple of ounces of liquid on a plane anymore. theres a whole chitload of very good resaons why that rule was implemented, and the recipes are all over the internet..

Adam Lanza, Newtown School Shooter, Was 'Nerd,' Honors Student
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
criminals didn't go into these schools or malls or what have you and start shooting. They were law-abiding citizens with access to weapons of mass killing power. You. my friend, are the one brainwashed. I will state again..YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IN INTACT!!!...a shotgun blast to the chest of an intruder will stop him cold. Ive never read or heard of a criminal entering a common, law-abiding citizens house and open up with an uzi...have you? Doubt it. no rights are being taken away!...If you really need that kind of weapon, you have the ability to purchase one..providing you qualify to own one. same with flame throwers, bazookas, etc...and if you give me a month or so ,I can probably get u what you need illegally. But why would you need it?And if you do need them? something is amiss in your brain to think you do. Don't u think that if Joe Blow down the street has a stockpile of those types of weapons,(all purchased legally now) that maybe he should be concedred a little nuts and kept an eye on? Common sense says yes. See, its about common sense. Common sense says that if you like to hunt animals, that you should have some hunting weapons. Don't forget..we are a society of rules, laws and regulations. The more we advance, so should those. It seems you lack the common sense to understand that. But , you know what?...Your not in my little world and never will be (thank god), So you hunker down with all your weapons and protect your perceived freedoms. But stay the fuk away from me cuz you give off a scary, crazy vibe. ick. [BadOne]

Jordan...Lets try this again...

Please "enlighten" me on exactly what attributes a gun must have to be classified as an "assault" weapon?
Also clarify what "types" of guns we shouldn't be "allowed" to own

Is an AR-15 an assault weapon?
Is a semi-automatic 30-06 an assault weapon?
Is a 12 gauge shotgun an assault weapon?
Is a semi-auto 22 caliber rifle an assault weapon?
How about a semi-auto pistol?
Have you ever shot any of the above?
Have you ever owned any of the above?
Do you know the ballistics characteristics of any of the above?
Do you know the effective range of any of the above?


To have such a strong opposition to certain "types" of guns, you certainly must know the answers to the above questions...

Also...please explain to me how banning a law abiding citizen like myself from owning an AR-15 or any other "type" of gun is going to stop a NON law abiding criminal from acquiring one...
 
Posted by jordanreed on :
 
exactly what im talkin bout, buck......you....a law-abiding guy,,now,,,but if someone sets you off, you have the arsenal to set them straight. But, there might be collateral damage, or you may be mistaken, or maybe you thought they were armed and weren't, you may have a tight screw that loosens up..you do seem pretty tightly wound. so..your answer is to let anyone who passes the requirements have any and all weapons of their choosing?..sorry but I disagree. Again..common sense prevails. All this stupid gun talk, with all your insane questions of what I know about guns is ludicrous . by the way..ALL guns are assault weapons. you can assault anything with them..and Im sure you've assaulted plenty of harmless things. I'm on the other side of the fence.as you know. So..there u have it....good luck and pass the bullets
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
Jordan...First off, I am a law abiding, peaceful human being and I detest violence...I don't understand how a human being can inflict pain or death on another human being without it being in self defense...It makes no sense to me at all, but it happens every day...

If someone "sets me off" I walk away and I avoid getting myself into violent situations...

The fact is that 99.999% of gun owners are responsible, law abiding, safety conscious individuals that never harm anyone with a gun and don't resort to gun violence when they get angry or "set off"

The second to last thing I ever want to happen in my life is to have to kill another human being...

The last thing I ever want to happen in my life is to get killed by another human being because I wasn't prepared to defend myself...

I want to live as long as I can and I am going to do whatever I can to increase those odds...

I quit smoking because it increases my odds of living a longer life.

I wear a seat belt because it increases my odds of living if I am involved in an accident

I wear a helmet when I snowboard or ride my motorcycle

I carry and own guns for the same reason

In your world there would be no guns and everyone would live in peace and harmony...as much as I would like to live in that perfect world myself and as nice as that would be, it isn't reality.

The sad fact is that in our society there are a VERY large number of people that have no regard for human life and will kill you at the drop of a hat for something as trivial as your tennis shoes.

I hope for your sake that you never encounter a bad guy that thinks like that, cause if you do, you're phucked

[ February 05, 2013, 13:33: Message edited by: buckstalker ]
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
exactly what im talkin bout, buck......you....a law-abiding guy,,now,,,but if someone sets you off, you have the arsenal to set them straight. But, there might be collateral damage, or you may be mistaken, or maybe you thought they were armed and weren't, you may have a tight screw that loosens up..you do seem pretty tightly wound. so..your answer is to let anyone who passes the requirements have any and all weapons of their choosing?..sorry but I disagree. Again..common sense prevails. All this stupid gun talk, with all your insane questions of what I know about guns is ludicrous . by the way..ALL guns are assault weapons. you can assault anything with them..and Im sure you've assaulted plenty of harmless things. I'm on the other side of the fence.as you know. So..there u have it....good luck and pass the bullets

After reading your last 2 posts, I am 100% sure that you are far more dangerous to our society than I will ever be...

In the first place, you are a hypocrite and secondly you are very misinformed.

As far as the hypocrisy goes...if you eat meat of any kind, then YOU are just as GUILTY as I am, of "assaulting plenty of harmless things"...

I don't kill animals for pleasure...I kill them for FOOD...

As far as being misinformed, if you believe that the mass murderers of late weren't criminals, I would say that you were SEVERELY misinformed.

If you want to debate guns or anything else in the future on this board...please bring something other than emotional drivel to the table.
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
How Criminals Get Guns: In Short, All Too Easily

By Don Terry
Published: March 11, 1992


Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single-Page


In one sad neighborhood here, where funerals for young men and boys are now commonplace, people say the "Gun Man" drives through the streets, selling pistols from the back of a light-blue van.

Not far away in a violent patch of Chicago's South Side, Federal agents arrested a different man, a licensed gun dealer, on charges of selling weapons illegally to undercover officers in dark alleys and crumbling garages. Before he was caught, the authorities say, he sold hundreds of firearms to gang members and anyone else with fistfuls of dollars.

In yet another part of the city a gang leader, who has three children and even more gunshot scars, sits sipping a soda on a rainy night. Calling the city "infected with guns," he explains how easy it is to buy one, no questions asked, at the gun shows held almost every weekend on the city's suburban edge. An Unending Supply

The river of illegal weapons running through the streets of Chicago, as elsewhere, is fed by many tributaries. Those who help legally made guns flow into illegal hands include a small minority of crooked gun dealers, gunrunners who bring in weapons bought in the suburbs or out of state, brigades of burglars and flea-market traders who are happy to sell to any customer.


complete article

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/11/us/how-criminals-get-guns-in-short-all-too-eas ily.html?src=pm
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
How Criminals Get Guns: In Short, All Too Easily

By Don Terry
Published: March 11, 1992


Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single-Page


In one sad neighborhood here, where funerals for young men and boys are now commonplace, people say the "Gun Man" drives through the streets, selling pistols from the back of a light-blue van.

Not far away in a violent patch of Chicago's South Side, Federal agents arrested a different man, a licensed gun dealer, on charges of selling weapons illegally to undercover officers in dark alleys and crumbling garages. Before he was caught, the authorities say, he sold hundreds of firearms to gang members and anyone else with fistfuls of dollars.

In yet another part of the city a gang leader, who has three children and even more gunshot scars, sits sipping a soda on a rainy night. Calling the city "infected with guns," he explains how easy it is to buy one, no questions asked, at the gun shows held almost every weekend on the city's suburban edge. An Unending Supply

The river of illegal weapons running through the streets of Chicago, as elsewhere, is fed by many tributaries. Those who help legally made guns flow into illegal hands include a small minority of crooked gun dealers, gunrunners who bring in weapons bought in the suburbs or out of state, brigades of burglars and flea-market traders who are happy to sell to any customer.


complete article

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/11/us/how-criminals-get-guns-in-short-all-too-eas ily.html?src=pm

You forgot to mention one important factor here ray...

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation...

I rest my case...gun laws DON'T WORK
 
Posted by raybond on :
 
Fact Sheet: Gun Show Loophole Arms Criminals


The “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that allows private citizens, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records. These “private sellers” often sell guns at the thousands of gun shows that take place every weekend across the country. But, private sales of guns also take place daily between individuals as people sell guns to family members, friends and strangers without any requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.
•Federal law requires federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) to conduct background checks on all buyers to make sure they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from owning guns. Dealers must conduct background checks whether at their primary place of business, or at a gun show. Dealers also keep buyer records in the event a gun is recovered in a crime and ATF needs to trace its serial number to its owner.
•Private sellers are not required to conduct background checks or keep records. In fact, federal law prevents private sellers from access to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
•Many criminals, knowing they can bypass background checks by purchasing from private sellers, use gun shows and individual sales as their source for obtaining guns.

The gun show loophole facilitates
sales to criminals:
•30% of trafficking: One ATF study found that over 10,000 crime guns traced in a year were connected to gun shows – about 30% of all crime guns traced that year.
•“Gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.” according to the ATF.
•Columbine: All four guns used in the Columbine school
massacre were bought at gun shows without background checks.
•New York City’s investigation of gun shows: In 2009, the City of New York sent undercover investigators to gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada to find out if private sellers and federally licensed gun dealers at the shows would engage in illegal sales practices. They found that 74% of sellers approached by investigators, who verbally indicated they were legally prohibited from having guns, were willing to make the sale.

Widespread support for closing the
gun show loophole:
•A majority of NRA members support closing the loophole: In a poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, 69% of NRA members and 85% of non-NRA gun owners supported background checks for all gun sales at gun shows.
•87% of Americans favor a requirement that everyone who sells guns at gun shows conduct criminal background checks on all purchases, according to a bipartisan 2008 poll.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dept. of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, “Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers” (June 2000), available at http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/followingthegun_internet.pdf (documents criminal investigations started July 1996 through December 1998).
 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
The link you provided takes me nowhere and is dated 1996 through 1998...

When and if the new "infringement of our rights" takes effect I can guarantee you this...the mass killings and violence will not decrease...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
the ATF did do a study that stated this:

Many Federal firearms licensees have complained to ATF about the conduct of
nonlicensees at gun shows.9 These licensees are understandably concerned that the
casual atmosphere of gun shows, combined with the absence of any requirement that an
unlicensed vendor check the background of a firearms purchaser, provides an opportunity
for felons and other prohibited persons to acquire firearms. Because Federal law neither
requires the creation of any record of these unlicensed sales nor places any obligations
upon gun show promoters, information is rarely available about the firearms sold should
they be recovered in a crime


and it's right here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDkQFjAB&url =http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atf.gov%2Fpublications%2Fdownload%2Ftreas%2Ftreas-gun-shows-br ady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf&ei=WGYRUdKsDOq-yQH4hoCYDA&usg=AFQjCNFN_pv1mN XB2DO8gsxb75JzUIIPjA&bvm=bv.41934586,d.aWc

most of those crimes investigated were people who are criminals and they wshould be removed formt he gun show circuit, but they will still be in business, just like dope dealers....
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
it appears it is actually just few people doingmost of th ereal damage:

Approximately 254 individuals identified in the ATF gun showrelated
investigations were checked against data in the Firearms Tracing System and
related data bases. Of these, 44 appeared in the multiple purchase records with an
average of 59 firearms per person. Of the 44 individuals, 15 were associated with 50 or
more multiple sale firearms; these individuals had a total of 188 crime guns traced to
them, an average of approximately 13 firearms each. The largest number of multiple
sales firearms associated with one individual was 472; this individual had 53 crime guns
traced to him. These patterns are not in and of themselves proof of trafficking. Rather,
they are indicators investigators use to assist in trafficking investigations.

 
Posted by buckstalker on :
 
I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, like felons and the mentally disturbed... I am not against requiring background checks for all guns sold at gun shows...the problem is...the anti-gun folks won't stop there...

I AM 100% against "universal" background checks...
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Originally Posted By Jordanreed:

"Your not in my little world and never will be (thank god)"
-------------------------------------------------

Your right Jordanreed, there are many people that are in your world, and it's not a bad world.

But that world won't save lives, it will just take freedoms away.

Hopefully the real world will come up with a better solution, that will actually protect our kids.

-
 


© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2