They Don't Care Who Has A Gun

[g5000]

I didn't see any mention of the NRA in the link. I don't think the NRA is on record as sanctioning gun ownership for the mentally ill. My guess is that the ACLU might have brought the case.

The ACLU is not known for taking on second amendment rights cases on the side of gun owners.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you want people defenseless?

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

The NRA has never supported the use of a gun in a crime. If you were a member then you would know stuff like that. it is obvious that the only thing you know about the NRA is what the Moon Bat shitheads on MSMBC tell you.

This guy the court ruled on never used a gun in a crime from what I read but had his rights taken away almost 30 years ago and it was a good thing that his rights were finally restored, don't you think?

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Fake member.

Ex member.

 

[BULLDOG]

[




I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Universal background checks are absolutely the wrong thing to do:

It will never stop a crook from getting a firearm to commit a crime. There may be hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to purchase a gun through a background system but it will never stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants one. It is an unnecessary burden.

Many bad guys can pass a background check because they are not in the system. We have seen that a few times lately, haven't we? If they have trouble with the system then they have plenty of other options to get a firearm.

However, more importantly it is the government requiring permission to enjoy a Constitutional right that is very wrong. If we have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on.

If they can require permission to adhere to the 2nd amendment then they can it for the 1st and all the others, can't they? You want to get permission from the government before you are allowed to go to church or voice an opinion? How about the 13th? The government has to deem you worthy before you are exempt from slavery.

As Life Member of the NRA I am disappoint that they don't fight UBC harder than they do. They hardly did anything in Washington State as an example and look what happen.

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

 

[Flash]

The Australian gun control measures, which make anti gunners giddy with emotion, couldn't stop a convicted criminal from getting a gun and killing this people in the coffee shop....and they turned in their handguns.....


Again...try to explain how universal background checks stop criminals who are committing 8-9,000 gun murders each from getting guns...or how universal background checks would have stopped the public shooters who passed background checks before their shooting sprees or who stole their guns or bought them illegally to begin with.....

If the Australians don't have firearms they will find another way to do their dirty deeds:


Police on scene at major incident in Cairns suburb Manoora

1.55pm: UP to eight young children are believed to have been stabbed to death by a woman in suburban Cairns.
Police in the far north Queensland city are at the scene of the house in Manoora, close to the city centre.
A police source has told The Australian the woman has stabbed the children and then herself in a suicide attempt, leaving her unconscious and in hospital.

Queensland Police Media would not confirm the number of children dead. The Australian has been told eight children have died, but there are reports it is seven.

Detectives are describing the scene as horrific, like something out of a horror movie. They are establishing a major incident room in the Cairns police headquarters. Officers are swarming the scene.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Seriously.....are you seeing a professional....this post makes no sense.....the guy is what we call a criminal.....he is in no way a "Good Guy" with a gun...and the NRA fights to keep guns out of this guys hands...

It is that very scenario that makes many of us want to carry a gun for self defense....that guy is obviously a democrat....since most prisoners in custody or out on parole identify as democrat....

Some people just don't seem to have the ability to think logically. Some have to add things and make it so complicated that they can't see the Forest through the Trees. Not everything is grey, some things are as simple as black and white and the left who say conservatives only see in black and white is not true. We use both and know when to see things in grey as well as black and white. the left seem to only look at grey.
You buy a gun you don't use it to commit a crime = good guy.
The minute you use it to commit a crime= bad guy.

So the NRA opposing universal background checks, knowing that will make it much easier for thugs to get guns, isn't advocating for thugs to get guns? Sure....What ever you say.

 

[Flash]

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

I oppose all background checks for the two reasons I stated above.

I can't speak for other NRA members but I think the NRA is weak on opposing background checks. They should fight it harder.

If my fellow NRA members supports background checks then I don't think they thought it through very well.

Most of my friends that I shoot with are against the checks so I really don't know where the support comes from.

There is an element in the NRA who we call "Fudds" (like in Elmer Fudd). They just want to protect their one shot hunting rifle and that is about it. They don't like the more modern firearms and they side with the Liberals on several issues like an assault weapons ban.

Maybe that is who you are talking a bout.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Do you have trouble with the words LEGAL and ILLEGAL guns?

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

Never said all guns. I said virtually all guns. The main one that surprises me is the only one that can assure the wrong person can't shoot it. The NRA shut down the sale of smart guns that are useless if stolen, or in the hands of the wrong person. Why do they oppose that?

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think they have actually said they want felons or the mentally adjudicated to have guns, but they almost universally oppose any action that would prevent it either. Can you show me all the programs they support that would, in fact, prevent either of those classes of people from getting a gun?

Key Word....almost. You're so full of it.

I never said the NRA was totally evil. Just mostly.

 

[BULLDOG]

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

I oppose all background checks for the two reasons I stated above.

I can't speak for other NRA members but I think the NRA is weak on opposing background checks. They should fight it harder.

If my fellow NRA members supports background checks then I don't think they thought it through very well.

Most of my friends that I shoot with are against the checks so I really don't know where the support comes from.

There is an element in the NRA who we call "Fudds" (like in Elmer Fudd). They just want to protect their one shot hunting rifle and that is about it. They don't like the more modern firearms and they side with the Liberals on several issues like an assault weapons ban.

Maybe that is who you are talking a bout.

Got it. You believe anybody should be able to buy a gun any time they want, and there should be no limitations on the sale of guns even if it is to a gang of thugs who will probably use them to rob and murder. No checks of any kind. They have the money, they get the gun. What a crazy idea.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is the NRA mentality. They don't care who has guns.

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional Fox News US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler.

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

Tyler’s lawyer, Lucas McCarthy, hopes that the ruling would have a “significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

Howey, this man spent time in an institution almost 30 years ago. So because of that he should lose his right to self defense for the rest of his life? Shall we extend that logic to other facets of life as well?

Furthermore, just because someone spends time in a mental institution doesn't necessarily mean they're crazy, suicidal, or dangerous to the public. There are a whole slue of reasons people spend time in a mental ward, sometimes for just a few days.

 

[Howey]

This is the NRA mentality. They don't care who has guns.

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional Fox News US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler.

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

Tyler’s lawyer, Lucas McCarthy, hopes that the ruling would have a “significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

Howey, this man spent time in an institution almost 30 years ago. So because of that he should lose his right to self defense for the rest of his life? Shall we extend that logic to other facets of life as well?

Furthermore, just because someone spends time in a mental institution doesn't necessarily mean they're crazy, suicidal, or dangerous to the public. There are a whole slue of reasons people spend time in a mental ward, sometimes for just a few days.

You missed my reply. I'm not concerned about this guy, I'm talking about the ramifications of the decision.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is the NRA mentality. They don't care who has guns.

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional Fox News US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler.

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

Tyler’s lawyer, Lucas McCarthy, hopes that the ruling would have a “significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

ROFLMNAO! You can't hide the idiots... They simply will not allow it!

 

[Flash]

[

Got it. You believe anybody should be able to buy a gun any time they want, and there should be no limitations on the sale of guns even if it is to a gang of thugs who will probably use them to rob and murder. No checks of any kind. They have the money, they get the gun. What a crazy idea.

Background checks don't stop thugs from getting guns now so what difference does it make?

Chicago doesn't really need background checks because hardly anybody can buy a gun there. They have the strictest gun control laws in the US but yet there are multiple shooting and about one killing a day there. To quote Hiliary Clinton "what difference does it make"?

Background checks do not keep the bad guys from getting firearms. A great number of firearms used in crime are stolen anyhow. All the background checks in the world isn't going to fix that. All background checks do is put a burden on the people that have no intentions of breaking the law.

The inconvenient truth about most gun control laws is that they do little or nothing to stop crime.

However, the bigger issue that I pointed out above that you ignored is that a citizen of the US having to get permission from the government to enjoy a right declared in the Bill of Rights. An individual right that is only qualified by the words "shall not be infringed".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[




I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Universal background checks are absolutely the wrong thing to do:

It will never stop a crook from getting a firearm to commit a crime. There may be hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to purchase a gun through a background system but it will never stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants one. It is an unnecessary burden.

Many bad guys can pass a background check because they are not in the system. We have seen that a few times lately, haven't we? If they have trouble with the system then they have plenty of other options to get a firearm.

However, more importantly it is the government requiring permission to enjoy a Constitutional right that is very wrong. If we have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on.

If they can require permission to adhere to the 2nd amendment then they can it for the 1st and all the others, can't they? You want to get permission from the government before you are allowed to go to church or voice an opinion? How about the 13th? The government has to deem you worthy before you are exempt from slavery.

As Life Member of the NRA I am disappoint that they don't fight UBC harder than they do. They hardly did anything in Washington State as an example and look what happen.

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

Few? Every sale everywhere that uses an FFL is required to have a BACKGROUND check. That includes gunshows.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The issue has nothing to do with the validity of designating those adjudicated mentally ill as prohibited persons, the issue has to do with the failure of the state to afford Tyler the means to demonstrate he should no longer be subject to the law's mental health provision:

'Federal law bans gun ownership for a variety of types of people, including convicted felons, people under 18, illegal aliens, drug addicts, and those ordered by a court to a mental institution.

However, federal law also says that people must have opportunities to prove that their disqualifying “disabilities” have ended and that they should be able to own a gun.

According to the opinion, the federal government defunded its so-called “relief from disabilities” program in 1992. Since 2008, states have been able to get federal grants to set up their own programs. But such programs are voluntary on the part of the states, and Michigan has yet to set one up, leaving Mr. Tyler without a venue by which to prove that his “disability” no longer should apply.'

Appeals Court Finds Gun Ban for Committed Man Unconstitutional - Law Blog - WSJ

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Do you have trouble with the words LEGAL and ILLEGAL guns?

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

Never said all guns. I said virtually all guns. The main one that surprises me is the only one that can assure the wrong person can't shoot it. The NRA shut down the sale of smart guns that are useless if stolen, or in the hands of the wrong person. Why do they oppose that?

Because they don't work.

 

[BULLDOG]

[




I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Universal background checks are absolutely the wrong thing to do:

It will never stop a crook from getting a firearm to commit a crime. There may be hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to purchase a gun through a background system but it will never stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants one. It is an unnecessary burden.

Many bad guys can pass a background check because they are not in the system. We have seen that a few times lately, haven't we? If they have trouble with the system then they have plenty of other options to get a firearm.

However, more importantly it is the government requiring permission to enjoy a Constitutional right that is very wrong. If we have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on.

If they can require permission to adhere to the 2nd amendment then they can it for the 1st and all the others, can't they? You want to get permission from the government before you are allowed to go to church or voice an opinion? How about the 13th? The government has to deem you worthy before you are exempt from slavery.

As Life Member of the NRA I am disappoint that they don't fight UBC harder than they do. They hardly did anything in Washington State as an example and look what happen.

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

Few? Every sale everywhere that uses an FFL is required to have a BACKGROUND check. That includes gunshows.

Licensed dealers at gun shows certainly have to do a background check. Unlicensed sellers don't. They can sell a gun to anybody, anywhere, when ever they want to. Gun shows, their front porch, a street corner, the trunk of their car, anywhere. I know what you are probably going to say next. An unlicensed seller is only allowed to sell a limited number of guns per year. OK, but with no record of any of the sales, the only way to tell if they reached that number is to witness every single sale they make. That won't happen.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Do you have trouble with the words LEGAL and ILLEGAL guns?

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

Never said all guns. I said virtually all guns. The main one that surprises me is the only one that can assure the wrong person can't shoot it. The NRA shut down the sale of smart guns that are useless if stolen, or in the hands of the wrong person. Why do they oppose that?

Because they don't work.

You're saying they won't fire a bullet out their barrel? What exactly doesn't work about them?

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is the NRA mentality. They don't care who has guns.

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional Fox News US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler.

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

Tyler’s lawyer, Lucas McCarthy, hopes that the ruling would have a “significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

The ruling does not eliminate the law. Perhaps if you had bothered to actually read the decision you would know the truth. The decision came about because under the law there is supposed to be a process by which a person can appeal the loss of the right. In the State in question NO SUCH process exists.

Inconvenient fact alert!!

But yes, it's quite simple: to remove anyone's rights, there MUST be due process!