They Don't Care Who Has A Gun

[MaxGrit]

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.

Fake ex member. Got it.

 

[Flash]

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.

One of the things that the anti gunners don't seem to understand that the harder the government makes it to buy a gun the bigger the black market will be. We see that big time in Chicago with their out of control gun violence. Nobody there suppose to have a gun but yet dozens of people are shot almost every weekend and a murder takes places almost every day.

With about 300 million guns in the US and the border with Mexico wide open the idea that we can curtail the illegal use of firearms by increasing background checks is simply halarious.

Nobody that has the intention of using a forearm for a crime will be deterred in any way by a background check because it is too easy to circumvent it.

All background checks do it give the anti gun nuts a false sense of security. They serve no useful purpose otherwise.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A 1999 ATF study found that 25 to 50% of gun show vendors are unlicensed

Wow, talk about dishonest. Not even mentioning the fact you went back fifteen years, many people at gun shows are "unlicensed", simply because (wait for it) they are not selling guns! And actually...the last one I went to, it was between 25 and 50% of the vendors! (Hell, my wife was an "unlicensed" vendor at one, helping someone selling holsters.)

Oddly, they don't call them holster shows. The large majority of what is sold at gun shows is (wait for it) guns. I noticed you only remarked about one study back in 99 but forgot to mention the much more recent data from 2009 and 2010.

Still dishonest, boy. It's not just guns...it's parts (barrels, stocks, etc), ammo, reloading supplies, holsters, books, even things like gun safes.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Comrade Shitferbrains;

Can you show even a single instance of a person with a CC permit EVER, even once?

No?

You know why that is? You're a lying scumbag and a demagogue.

We're not discussing CC. We're discussing what the NRA stands for. They would prefer to do away with CC and allow open carry across the board.
Texas considers allowing open carry of handguns

Great, it's hard to carry concealed when it's 95 degrees outside and you're wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

Try a Maqui rig nd a slightly longer shirt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The current background checks are enforceable. UBC is not. All the difference in the world.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The ramifications of the decision are simply that there has to be a review process available where a person can get their rights restored, is that really unreasonable?

 

[Flash]

[



Gun shows are a popular venue for “private sales” in which unlicensed sellers can sell guns without background checks.

So what?

In most places in the US it is legal to have private sales.

There is nothing illegal about it. In fact many people go to gun shows to sell firearms and many people go to buy them. I have got some good deal with private sales at gun shows.

It is not any of the business of the government what firearms I buy or sell as a private citizen. If I was in the business of selling firearms commercially then that may be a different matter because we all know how much the filthy government likes to regulate businesses, don't we?.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously, your mind is made up, so I won't continue confusing you with facts. Have a good day.

Did you really just say that?
Really?
You've been pounded with facts as to why you are wrong ever since this topic started, and you've ignored every single one of them.
Every single one.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Comrade Shitferbrains;

Can you show even a single instance of a person with a CC permit EVER, even once?

No?

You know why that is? You're a lying scumbag and a demagogue.

We're not discussing CC. We're discussing what the NRA stands for. They would prefer to do away with CC and allow open carry across the board.
Texas considers allowing open carry of handguns

Great, it's hard to carry concealed when it's 95 degrees outside and you're wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

Try a Maqui rig nd a slightly longer shirt.

I did a search for that term and got results for some kind of berry. Got another name for it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A 1999 ATF study found that 25 to 50% of gun show vendors are unlicensed

Wow, talk about dishonest. Not even mentioning the fact you went back fifteen years, many people at gun shows are "unlicensed", simply because (wait for it) they are not selling guns! And actually...the last one I went to, it was between 25 and 50% of the vendors! (Hell, my wife was an "unlicensed" vendor at one, helping someone selling holsters.)

Oddly, they don't call them holster shows. The large majority of what is sold at gun shows is (wait for it) guns. I noticed you only remarked about one study back in 99 but forgot to mention the much more recent data from 2009 and 2010.

Most sellers at gun shows are NOT selling firearms at all. Been to many of them and except an occasional person all firearms are sold by FFL. And most sellers were selling memorabilia, accessories and odds and ends.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I did a search for that term and got results for some kind of berry. Got another name for it.

Not much to it (literally)...it's a strip of leather that loops around the frame at the back of the belt. My uncle refers to it as a Maqui rig. It's about half a step past stuffing it in your pants.

 

[Brain357]

So a guy had a little problem back in 1986 that lasted a month and the government wants to deny him his Constitutional rights for the rest of his life.

Looks like the court got it right.

Of course the Libtards don't really care about mental health and gun ownership. The stupid Democrats in Congress rejected the Grassley Cruz Bill that would have strengthened the ability of the government to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

It does seem like there should have been some sort of appeals process.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So a guy had a little problem back in 1986 that lasted a month and the government wants to deny him his Constitutional rights for the rest of his life.

Looks like the court got it right.

Of course the Libtards don't really care about mental health and gun ownership. The stupid Democrats in Congress rejected the Grassley Cruz Bill that would have strengthened the ability of the government to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

It does seem like there should have been some sort of appeals process.

There is but the Feds quit funding it and gave it to the States and that State in particular refused to create the program.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

1. the nra fights so the clerk can shoot back so the other guy won't try since he knows the clerk is packing
2. they never would, b/c you are lying
3. you're still lying b/c that's what leftist do in order to remove our rights.

1. The NRA fights for the gun toting thief just as hard as they do for the clerk. They make no distinction when it comes to advocating universal gun ownership.

2. I agree. They never would.

3. I'm not sure how a question can be a lie. One is the request for information while the other is a statement. Are you going to run from a simple, reasonable question?

1. the nra fights for everyone to keep their rights, unlike the dnc.
3. an accusation with a question mark at the end is still an accusation and not a reasonable question

 

[Politico]

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.”

So are you for or against prohibiting a person from buying a gun because he was briefly in a mental institution 30 years ago?

I thought you understood by now. He is against anyone having them.

 

[protectionist]

If someone is nuts NOW, they should be banned from having a gun. If someone was nuts 28 years ago (for a month), this doesn't even warrant a question being asked.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

The safety feature is intermittent, it is easily spoofed and fails all the time.

So the NRA opposes that particular gun because it isn't 100% dependable. Sorry, but if they were going to use that reason, they should have come out against 32 cal long ago. The safety feature is subject to a lot of discussion, but even if it never worked the first time, how would it be deserving of being banned? Is it any more dangerous than any other gun?

And when has the NRA advocated for banning that technology?

 

[FA_Q2]

[




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.

Universal background checks are not enforceable, period. That is the problem with them. ALL it does is place undue strain on legal sellers without doing one thing to stop illegal gun sales. Until that reality is faces, all those demands calling for grater checks and more laws are completely asinine and pointless.

Further, within the next 5 years or so the entire point sill be completely moot as you can now simply print your own gun in the comfort of your own home and there isn't a damn thing that anyone can do to stop you.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

That fallacy has already been addressed and you have failed to bother with it.
How about you explain just ONE 'ramification' from this decision.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Are liberals responsible for all the rapists and murderers they let out of prison on parole?