Hillary says NRA needs a "rival" organization of responsible gun owners

[Wry Catcher]

I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters? I also cannot fathom why Obama, who is supposed to be the leader of the Democrat Party, opted to use executive order to infuriate a whole bunch of voters. He could easily have simply done nothing and eased on out of office. His action will cause some who were sitting on the fence to vote against Hillary especially since she has decided to enter the fray as well. There are an awful lot of Democrats and Independents who are heavily into guns. To me, it's a stupid political move on both Obama's and Hillary's part.

She is NOT trying to take guns away from you.

I have no idea what you mean by a "moderate" gun owner?

In reality, there are only two categories of gun owners.

1) Legal gun owners who obey the law.

2) Criminals who own illegal guns.

And mentally ill people who buy guns legally and then let loose in a public place.

According to the form that is filled out when a person buys a firearm from a FFL dealer, a mentally ill person cannot legally purchase a firearm. So, your attempt to rebut him fails.

How does the seller know the person is mentally ill if he/she has never been hospitalized?

Civil detentions (CA code W&I 5150) where a person is detained as a danger to themselves or others do not appear always appear on arrest records and many times are not reported to the recording agency (CII in CA.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary needs to start Mao's Gun Safety Association

Go for it!

 

[OKTexas]

Why? Because it's the law. Move to Texas if this upsets you so. There you can parade around the streets with your beloved gun on your hip & be free from the law you oppose.

You are incorrect!

You should first read the actual open and carry law, and understand a business also has the right to deny open and carry.

Also Texas is not the only state to allow open and carry and you have to be license to open and carry.

You should actually read the law first before making wild claims because I can not parade around with my shotgun and would not anyway!

Open Carry : Texas Concealed Handgun License

i thought open carry was the law of the land in states that allowed hunting. Hard to hunt if you have to conceal your weapon. My opinion is, whatever the police are allowed to do the citizens have the same ability.

Personally I don't think open carry protects a person more then concealed carry. What open carry does is allow a person to know where your weapon is and it might actually be the target of a robbery. Especially women carrying openly.

Police go through a very extensive background check which includes a psychological evaluation.

And we see how well that works out. I don't have a problem with the psychological evaluation, just make it as simple as possible.

Written psyc tests are not simple, they need to be valid and reliable.

Reliability is the degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and consistent results;
Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure.

The psyc's taken by LE arew both reliable and valid, it cannot predict how life on the streets will later change a persons behavior.

They do weed out many from consideration as an armed agent of the government.

Yet some still go to the dark side, you can't predict everything, no matter how extensive or costly the tests.

 

[OKTexas]

27.7% of guns used in crimes were sold by legally licensed FFL's....

I don't see how ANYONE can not view this as a REAL and JUSTIFIED problem?

It is a problem and the seller should be given life in prison if the crime that resulted from their illegal sale caused a death...

It will make a dealer think twice before illegally selling a gun or a purchaser would also think twice if they are buying the gun legally and then selling it illegally to someone that is not allow to own a gun...

Oh goody!! We need to go our and arrest all the car dealers for murder.

The FFL that sells to the guy trafficker who distributes the guns to criminals on the street, (the Black Market), and who comes back time and time and time again, buying more guns from the FFL should make the FFL in the least, suspicious, you would think???

I don't know, but it would seem to be that way...?

The government is the one with the final say on the purchase, not the dealer. If fact the dealer could be sued for not making a sale approved by NICS. Thank you, regressive public accommodation laws.

 

[OKTexas]

There you go again blaming the gun. Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

The gun is the tool The PERSON USING IT IS THE WEAPON. Idiot.

Move to Europe. No one there has a gun. Your prayers will be answered.

There are lots of tools that you just can't use without extensive training and evaluation. licensing, and continuing education. Try climbing into a big crane without certification and see how long you are allowed to stay there.

Is operating a "big crane" a specific Constitutional right?

You idiots come up with some stupid shit.

Not specific, but since it is not denied, yes it is a constitutional right. Still doesn't prevent regulation..

The very definition of regulation is an infringement on activity, what do you fail to understand about "shall not be infringed"?

Ask Justice Scalia. Even he says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited - and he's a NaziCon fruitcake.

The only thing you idiots need to learn is "reasonable" or "common sense" are not objective terms. But you never let that stop you from throwing them around like that are.

 

[OKTexas]

Hillary Clinton urges moderate gun owners to take on the NRA



Are there any moderate gun owners, are all they all Texas rednecks?

It strikes me all gun owners are right wing madmen

Hmmm, I am a right wing mad man?

No, I live in Texas and own two shotguns, and I am a responsible gun owner. One Shotgun is for hunting Duck, Boar, and wild game and the other is for land protection.

My one shotgun is in a locked closet and come out during hunting season while the other is on a rack where i can grab it quickly.

My shotguns are never loaded but both have a sleeve to hold shells that can be loaded quickly.

So what part of what I have is not reasonable to you?

Do you believe someone like me should not be allow to hunt?

How about protecting my land against wild dogs?

I find it strange that those like you believe there is no reasonable gun owners and believe everyone that own a gun is some lunatic...

Most of us who support gun control measures do not see gun owners as you self report to be the problem. And most of us responsible supporters of rational gun laws do not support the repeal of the 2nd A. We want people properly vetted.

I for one want to see all gun owners licensed and all guns registered on a State by State basis. Let Texas do what they want, and allow California citizens to vote to license and register or not.

In fact I'd grandfather in all current gun owners and not require that they be licensed or register their guns, the only restriction being they could only sell their gun to a licensed person or dealer, and could only buy an additional gun or guns if they became licensed and registered their new gun along with those already owned by them.

So someone gets more rights than me because they got there first?

Again, I don't trust any more gun control legislation while my rights in NYC continue to be infringed.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a handgun permit for my own home?

Vote the bums out or move.

Good luck with voting them out in NYC. our only hope is the courts.

Well, you're screwed then, regressives have packed the courts with folks that have no respect for the Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

i agree Dillo, in the cases of mass murders, but the other 8000 murdered a year, not so much...

FFL's are trafficking their guns to the black market....27.7% of the guns used in crimes that were confiscated, traced directly back to LEGAL FFL Gun sellers... that's a problem that needs to be addressed.

and 100% can be traced back to the manufacturer. Individuals must be held responsible for what they do with a gun and anything else for that matter.

and individuals should be held responsible...

AND the FFL's who intentionally sell to gun traffickers need to be held responsible as well...

Owning or selling a gun is not the problem. What is it going to take for liberals to see that ?

How about ten years without a mass murder; ten weeks without a suicide or a murder-suicide, or the accidental death of a child playing with a gun.

What will it take to convince you that guns kill people and not every gun owner is or will ever be responsible, sane, sober and law abiding?

When a gun shoots by itself

Guns in the hand of the insane, those impaired by drugs or alcohol or those seeking power and control over others are provided, by the possession of the gun itself, the means to do things they would not or could not do if not armed with a firearm.

So your rebuttal is not only silly, it and you fail to recognize the power a gun can hold over a person.

 

[OKTexas]

Hillary Clinton urges moderate gun owners to take on the NRA

Hillary Clinton urges moderate gun owners to take on the NRA

Are there any moderate gun owners, are all they all Texas rednecks?

It strikes me all gun owners are right wing madmen

Hmmm, I am a right wing mad man?

No, I live in Texas and own two shotguns, and I am a responsible gun owner. One Shotgun is for hunting Duck, Boar, and wild game and the other is for land protection.

My one shotgun is in a locked closet and come out during hunting season while the other is on a rack where i can grab it quickly.

My shotguns are never loaded but both have a sleeve to hold shells that can be loaded quickly.

So what part of what I have is not reasonable to you?

Do you believe someone like me should not be allow to hunt?

How about protecting my land against wild dogs?

I find it strange that those like you believe there is no reasonable gun owners and believe everyone that own a gun is some lunatic...

Most of us who support gun control measures do not see gun owners as you self report to be the problem. And most of us responsible supporters of rational gun laws do not support the repeal of the 2nd A. We want people properly vetted.

I for one want to see all gun owners licensed and all guns registered on a State by State basis. Let Texas do what they want, and allow California citizens to vote to license and register or not.

In fact I'd grandfather in all current gun owners and not require that they be licensed or register their guns, the only restriction being they could only sell their gun to a licensed person or dealer, and could only buy an additional gun or guns if they became licensed and registered their new gun along with those already owned by them.

So someone gets more rights than me because they got there first?

Again, I don't trust any more gun control legislation while my rights in NYC continue to be infringed.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a handgun permit for my own home?

This is not about you personally, but might the expense and difficulty to own a handgun in NYC be part of the reason NYC violent crime rates are lower than the national average and that violent crime in NYC has been dropping for over a decade? Could it possibly be that curtailing access to firearms has a positive effect?

Violent crimes have been falling nation wide for a couple of decades, could all the new firearms in the hands of citizens be driving that trend? Many think so.

But for NYC, the stop an frisk policy took many guns out of the hands of criminals, that policy has been ended and crime will start to rise again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Post 118, "I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters?"

The implication being that hunter's are effected by the EO. Why would you include them if it were not an effort to pass on propaganda?

No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.

Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intended to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?

Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, no poach or murder.

Illinois requires every gun owner to have an FOID card.
Remind me how that lowered gun violence in Chicago.

Gun violence is a symptom of many other socio-economic problems in America, and manifest in the inner cities. It is racists like you who want to blame others, when it is you who create the environment by myopic hate and fear rhetoric, both overt and covert, guised by absurd fiscal and political policies.

You are correct that gun violence is a symptom of other things. So why do you think laws restricting lawful gun owners will change the underlying causes of it?
The rest of your post is your usual name calling irrational shit. Go suck a dick.

I don't see requiring a license and registering a gun as any greater burden than licensing a car, a driver and registering a vehicle.

Why are you so obsessed with dick sucking? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and since you do so on every post I make I'm forced to complain to the mods.

It's a principled move and every Democrat understands that there are many Americans who are single issue voters. But not every gun owner who heard what with The President or HRC said consider their remarks are unreasonable or irrational.

You claim hunters will lose their rights to own a hunting rifle, that claim is not substantiated by anything said by Obama or Clinton!

OK, so be like MLK and start making speeches and get thousands of others who believe as do you to march on DC. A million gun owners at the mall singing we will overcome, and you making an I have a dream speech where one day my little children can bring an AR-15 to second grade show and tell.

Go for it, be a leader!

It's a principled move and every Democrat understands that there are many Americans who are single issue voters. But not every gun owner who heard what with The President or HRC said consider their remarks are unreasonable or irrational.

You claim hunters will lose their rights to own a hunting rifle, that claim is not substantiated by anything said by Obama or Clinton!

OK, so be like MLK and start making speeches and get thousands of others who believe as do you to march on DC. A million gun owners at the mall singing we will overcome, and you making an I have a dream speech where one day my little children can bring an AR-15 to second grade show and tell.

Go for it, be a leader!

Apparently you can't read. Nowhere did I state that hunters would lose any rights. Do you have these spells of dementia often?

Post 118, "I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters?"

The implication being that hunter's are effected by the EO. Why would you include them if it were not an effort to pass on propaganda?

No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.

Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intening to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?

Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, not poach or murder.

Well, for that matter my intelligent friend, how in the hell would a hunter with a license who sells a gun to another hunter with a license, know that the hunter with the license wasn't going to use the gun to kill his wife or a bunch of people at McDonalds? Does that license of yours automatically prevent someone from using the gun to murder others. We have had police officers murder their wives.

It does not. Never have I even suggested a license is a panacea to prevent such behavior. In fact a license held by both parties would give the seller immunity should the buyer commit a criminal act.

Current events in California evidence this fact. The straw buyer who gave the Weapons to the two terrorists in SoCal is now in jail pending trial.

 

[OKTexas]

I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters? I also cannot fathom why Obama, who is supposed to be the leader of the Democrat Party, opted to use executive order to infuriate a whole bunch of voters. He could easily have simply done nothing and eased on out of office. His action will cause some who were sitting on the fence to vote against Hillary especially since she has decided to enter the fray as well. There are an awful lot of Democrats and Independents who are heavily into guns. To me, it's a stupid political move on both Obama's and Hillary's part.

She is NOT trying to take guns away from you.

I have no idea what you mean by a "moderate" gun owner?

In reality, there are only two categories of gun owners.

1) Legal gun owners who obey the law.

2) Criminals who own illegal guns.

And mentally ill people who buy guns legally and then let loose in a public place.

According to the form that is filled out when a person buys a firearm from a FFL dealer, a mentally ill person cannot legally purchase a firearm. So, your attempt to rebut him fails.

How does the seller know the person is mentally ill if he/she has never been hospitalized?

The same way the government knows a person registering to vote is a citizen, they check a box.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hillary Clinton urges moderate gun owners to take on the NRA



Are there any moderate gun owners, are all they all Texas rednecks?

It strikes me all gun owners are right wing madmen

Hmmm, I am a right wing mad man?

No, I live in Texas and own two shotguns, and I am a responsible gun owner. One Shotgun is for hunting Duck, Boar, and wild game and the other is for land protection.

My one shotgun is in a locked closet and come out during hunting season while the other is on a rack where i can grab it quickly.

My shotguns are never loaded but both have a sleeve to hold shells that can be loaded quickly.

So what part of what I have is not reasonable to you?

Do you believe someone like me should not be allow to hunt?

How about protecting my land against wild dogs?

I find it strange that those like you believe there is no reasonable gun owners and believe everyone that own a gun is some lunatic...

Most of us who support gun control measures do not see gun owners as you self report to be the problem. And most of us responsible supporters of rational gun laws do not support the repeal of the 2nd A. We want people properly vetted.

I for one want to see all gun owners licensed and all guns registered on a State by State basis. Let Texas do what they want, and allow California citizens to vote to license and register or not.

In fact I'd grandfather in all current gun owners and not require that they be licensed or register their guns, the only restriction being they could only sell their gun to a licensed person or dealer, and could only buy an additional gun or guns if they became licensed and registered their new gun along with those already owned by them.

So someone gets more rights than me because they got there first?

Again, I don't trust any more gun control legislation while my rights in NYC continue to be infringed.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a handgun permit for my own home?

Why? Because it's the law. Move to Texas if this upsets you so. There you can parade around the streets with your beloved gun on your hip & be free from the law you oppose.

This whole damn thread exist because you are trying to take that right away from everyone. Why don't you fucking regressives move your asses to States that have laws you support and leave the rest of us alone? Thank for showing you true face, hypocrite.

You can read and comprehend, thus you've proved to be a liar.

I've said this about gun control

• States should decide if they want to license gun owners
• States should decided if they want to register guns
• States should decide on the factors to deny, suspend or revoke a license
• States should decide on the types of weapon to be prohibited
• States should decide on open carry, concealed carry and other forms of transport of guns
• States should decide if guns are allowed in parks and other public places
• States should decide if Cities or Counties can impose stricter rules on gun storage or possession outside the home or business

I don't care what you do in Texas, and rural regions can and should have different gun laws than cities.

I believe any sober, sane and law abiding citizen can have a gun to protect his home or business. Beyond that, guns need to be controlled by whatever democratic process the citizens of the State, region or community decide.

 

[Wry Catcher]

i agree Dillo, in the cases of mass murders, but the other 8000 murdered a year, not so much...

FFL's are trafficking their guns to the black market....27.7% of the guns used in crimes that were confiscated, traced directly back to LEGAL FFL Gun sellers... that's a problem that needs to be addressed.

and 100% can be traced back to the manufacturer. Individuals must be held responsible for what they do with a gun and anything else for that matter.

and individuals should be held responsible...

AND the FFL's who intentionally sell to gun traffickers need to be held responsible as well...

Owning or selling a gun is not the problem. What is it going to take for liberals to see that ?

How about ten years without a mass murder; ten weeks without a suicide or a murder-suicide, or the accidental death of a child playing with a gun.

What will it take to convince you that guns kill people and not every gun owner is or will ever be responsible, sane, sober and law abiding?

So all suicides are caused by guns, really?

I didn't write that either. Nor do I think the Golden Gate Bridge needs to be removed because of suicides.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.

Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intended to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?

Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, no poach or murder.

Illinois requires every gun owner to have an FOID card.
Remind me how that lowered gun violence in Chicago.

Gun violence is a symptom of many other socio-economic problems in America, and manifest in the inner cities. It is racists like you who want to blame others, when it is you who create the environment by myopic hate and fear rhetoric, both overt and covert, guised by absurd fiscal and political policies.

You are correct that gun violence is a symptom of other things. So why do you think laws restricting lawful gun owners will change the underlying causes of it?
The rest of your post is your usual name calling irrational shit. Go suck a dick.

I don't see requiring a license and registering a gun as any greater burden than licensing a car, a driver and registering a vehicle.

Why are you so obsessed with dick sucking? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and since you do so on every post I make I'm forced to complain to the mods.

Apparently you can't read. Nowhere did I state that hunters would lose any rights. Do you have these spells of dementia often?

Post 118, "I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters?"

The implication being that hunter's are effected by the EO. Why would you include them if it were not an effort to pass on propaganda?

No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.

Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intening to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?

Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, not poach or murder.

Well, for that matter my intelligent friend, how in the hell would a hunter with a license who sells a gun to another hunter with a license, know that the hunter with the license wasn't going to use the gun to kill his wife or a bunch of people at McDonalds? Does that license of yours automatically prevent someone from using the gun to murder others. We have had police officers murder their wives.

It does not. Never have I even suggested a license is a panacea to prevent such behavior. In fact a license held by both parties would give the seller immunity should the buyer commit a criminal act.

Current events in California evidence this fact. The straw buyer who gave the Weapons to the two terrorists in SoCal is now in jail pending trial.

It doesnt really matter what you think. The fact is it does represent a greater burden. And with no corresponding benefit to anyone. You will not answer how you plan to get convicted felons to comply with your rules.

 

[Care4all]

27.7% of guns used in crimes were sold by legally licensed FFL's....

I don't see how ANYONE can not view this as a REAL and JUSTIFIED problem?

It is a problem and the seller should be given life in prison if the crime that resulted from their illegal sale caused a death...

It will make a dealer think twice before illegally selling a gun or a purchaser would also think twice if they are buying the gun legally and then selling it illegally to someone that is not allow to own a gun...

Oh goody!! We need to go our and arrest all the car dealers for murder.

The FFL that sells to the guy trafficker who distributes the guns to criminals on the street, (the Black Market), and who comes back time and time and time again, buying more guns from the FFL should make the FFL in the least, suspicious, you would think???

I don't know, but it would seem to be that way...?

The government is the one with the final say on the purchase, not the dealer. If fact the dealer could be sued for not making a sale approved by NICS. Thank you, regressive public accommodation laws.

Then that is something that should legally change, and there should be a phone number for these FFL's to report suspicious activities....maybe there is one already?

of course they won't report a thing if they purposely show a blind eye to it, so that they can continue to make money with every sale to the supposed legal background check, trafficker.

since it was the ATF that had these statistics on firearms confiscated from crimes were purchased from FFL's 27.7% of the time, you would think the ATF is already watching the FFL's that sold the most guns used in crimes?

And maybe that is already happening?

 

[Kondor3]

The National Rifle Association is doing exactly what its members want it to do - defending the American People in their Right to Bear Arms.

Integral to that defense is opposition to each and every attempt by Big Government to curtail or impede or strip away such rights, or to make them more difficult to exercise.

The idea of a National Gun Club Comprised of Members Who Think Like Hillary Does is (a) doomed to failure and (b) residing only in some weird Alternate Universe.

Only one of a vast number of ideas - each as useful as a screen door in a submarine - likely to flow from the fevered brow of the HildaBeast, if we are foolish enough to let her.

There are a number of things that the NRA does, to try to impede forward progress on reasonable gun-control, that Americans should probably not let them get away with.

But that's on us, not them.

Reasonable to who, fucking idiot regressives?

Reasonable to The American People at large, of course.

You know... the ultimate Masters of this land, for whom the Constitution was created, and by whose leave it continues to function.

 

[the_human_being]

I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters? I also cannot fathom why Obama, who is supposed to be the leader of the Democrat Party, opted to use executive order to infuriate a whole bunch of voters. He could easily have simply done nothing and eased on out of office. His action will cause some who were sitting on the fence to vote against Hillary especially since she has decided to enter the fray as well. There are an awful lot of Democrats and Independents who are heavily into guns. To me, it's a stupid political move on both Obama's and Hillary's part.

She is NOT trying to take guns away from you.

I have no idea what you mean by a "moderate" gun owner?

In reality, there are only two categories of gun owners.

1) Legal gun owners who obey the law.

2) Criminals who own illegal guns.

And mentally ill people who buy guns legally and then let loose in a public place.

According to the form that is filled out when a person buys a firearm from a FFL dealer, a mentally ill person cannot legally purchase a firearm. So, your attempt to rebut him fails.

How does the seller know the person is mentally ill if he/she has never been hospitalized?

Who the hell said she was? Can't any of you Liberals read a damn post?

 

[The Rabbi]

The National Rifle Association is doing exactly what its members want it to do - defending the American People in their Right to Bear Arms.

Integral to that defense is opposition to each and every attempt by Big Government to curtail or impede or strip away such rights, or to make them more difficult to exercise.

The idea of a National Gun Club Comprised of Members Who Think Like Hillary Does is (a) doomed to failure and (b) residing only in some weird Alternate Universe.

Only one of a vast number of ideas - each as useful as a screen door in a submarine - likely to flow from the fevered brow of the HildaBeast, if we are foolish enough to let her.

There are a number of things that the NRA does, to try to impede forward progress on reasonable gun-control, that Americans should probably not let them get away with.

But that's on us, not them.

Reasonable to who, fucking idiot regressives?

Reasonable to The American People at large, of course.

You know... the ultimate Masters of this land, for whom the Constitution was created, and by whose leave it continues to function.

Obviously not because the people's elected reps have consistently refused to pass that garbage into law.

 

[Kondor3]

The National Rifle Association is doing exactly what its members want it to do - defending the American People in their Right to Bear Arms.

Integral to that defense is opposition to each and every attempt by Big Government to curtail or impede or strip away such rights, or to make them more difficult to exercise.

The idea of a National Gun Club Comprised of Members Who Think Like Hillary Does is (a) doomed to failure and (b) residing only in some weird Alternate Universe.

Only one of a vast number of ideas - each as useful as a screen door in a submarine - likely to flow from the fevered brow of the HildaBeast, if we are foolish enough to let her.

There are a number of things that the NRA does, to try to impede forward progress on reasonable gun-control, that Americans should probably not let them get away with.

But that's on us, not them.

Reasonable to who, fucking idiot regressives?

Reasonable to The American People at large, of course.

You know... the ultimate Masters of this land, for whom the Constitution was created, and by whose leave it continues to function.

Obviously not because the people's elected reps have consistently refused to pass that garbage into law.

When The People want effective gun-control badly enough they will force their elected reps to execute their Will.

 

[The Rabbi]

The National Rifle Association is doing exactly what its members want it to do - defending the American People in their Right to Bear Arms.

Integral to that defense is opposition to each and every attempt by Big Government to curtail or impede or strip away such rights, or to make them more difficult to exercise.

The idea of a National Gun Club Comprised of Members Who Think Like Hillary Does is (a) doomed to failure and (b) residing only in some weird Alternate Universe.

Only one of a vast number of ideas - each as useful as a screen door in a submarine - likely to flow from the fevered brow of the HildaBeast, if we are foolish enough to let her.

There are a number of things that the NRA does, to try to impede forward progress on reasonable gun-control, that Americans should probably not let them get away with.

But that's on us, not them.

Reasonable to who, fucking idiot regressives?

Reasonable to The American People at large, of course.

You know... the ultimate Masters of this land, for whom the Constitution was created, and by whose leave it continues to function.

Obviously not because the people's elected reps have consistently refused to pass that garbage into law.

When The People want effective gun-control badly enough they will force their elected reps to execute their Will.

Certain states enacted that crap. So they got it. But the country as a whole is rejecting it and has consistently for 20 years.

 

[the_human_being]

No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.

Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intended to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?

Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, no poach or murder.

Illinois requires every gun owner to have an FOID card.
Remind me how that lowered gun violence in Chicago.

Gun violence is a symptom of many other socio-economic problems in America, and manifest in the inner cities. It is racists like you who want to blame others, when it is you who create the environment by myopic hate and fear rhetoric, both overt and covert, guised by absurd fiscal and political policies.

You are correct that gun violence is a symptom of other things. So why do you think laws restricting lawful gun owners will change the underlying causes of it?
The rest of your post is your usual name calling irrational shit. Go suck a dick.

I don't see requiring a license and registering a gun as any greater burden than licensing a car, a driver and registering a vehicle.

Why are you so obsessed with dick sucking? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and since you do so on every post I make I'm forced to complain to the mods.

Apparently you can't read. Nowhere did I state that hunters would lose any rights. Do you have these spells of dementia often?

Post 118, "I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters?"

The implication being that hunter's are effected by the EO. Why would you include them if it were not an effort to pass on propaganda?

No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.

Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intening to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?

Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, not poach or murder.

Well, for that matter my intelligent friend, how in the hell would a hunter with a license who sells a gun to another hunter with a license, know that the hunter with the license wasn't going to use the gun to kill his wife or a bunch of people at McDonalds? Does that license of yours automatically prevent someone from using the gun to murder others. We have had police officers murder their wives.

It does not. Never have I even suggested a license is a panacea to prevent such behavior. In fact a license held by both parties would give the seller immunity should the buyer commit a criminal act.

Current events in California evidence this fact. The straw buyer who gave the Weapons to the two terrorists in SoCal is now in jail pending trial.

But it certainly did not prevent the act itself.