They Don't Care Who Has A Gun

[Flash]

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

When was the last time you heard a Liberal take responsibility for anything?

 

[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?

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.

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

Then let me resolve your confusion

Are you going to run from a simple, reasonable question?

 

[dblack]

Huh... read the topic header and thought this thread was about our relatively untrained police force.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

I started to give you a link to several times, but after Google gave me 6,120,000 hits in 0.79 seconds, I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They Don't Care Who Has A Gun


Here we see another warmed-over lie from the usual leftist fanatics.

They can't refute the NRA's stance that the government should have no say in which law-abiding citizen should or shouldn't own a gun.

So they lie about the NRA instead, and try to pretend they "don't care who has a gun".

The futility and dishonesty of these people knows no bounds.

 

[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.

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.

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

 

[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?

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

WOW....I didn't know I could just let people out of prison. You got any idea when I gained that ability?

 

[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.

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

Then let me resolve your confusion

Are you going to run from a simple, reasonable question?

there's no confusion, you're just a liar.

I hope that's clear.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

I started to give you a link to several times, but after Google gave me 6,120,000 hits in 0.79 seconds, I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

Then one should be easy to come by.

Otherwise you are blowing smoke. I see all over the place that they do not advocate for it, do not want it as a required technology and do not suggest anyone use it. Where have they advocated for a ban?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

This is the problem - anti-gun advocates are ignorant to actual facts. I don't just THINK you can print a completely plastic gun, I KNOW you can because it has already been done - several times. They are presenting new challenges as plastic guns are not detectable by metal detectors and can pass through security rather easily at this point. Right now, high capacity is not out there but that is coming.




And then there are the older versions that use parts of another weapon:


Very effective because the lower reviver is the part that is controlled. Then again, it has already been shown that you can manufacture a barrel from plastic that is effective.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

You do not know a damn thing about 3D printing, do you. (That's not a question.)

Of course...modern CAD-CAM machining means you can disassemble a gun, scan the parts, and MAKE a new one from metal stock! (It's not unusual...there are at least six places that can do this in the county where I live.)

 

[FA_Q2]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

You do not know a damn thing about 3D printing, do you. (That's not a question.)

Of course...modern CAD-CAM machining means you can disassemble a gun, scan the parts, and MAKE a new one from metal stock! (It's not unusual...there are at least six places that can do this in the county where I live.)

The downside to metal printing is that it is expensive though. The thing about plastic printing, it can be had for 500 bucks. And you can still print working firearms from it.

That is today. Every year it gets more assessable and more advanced.

 

[dblack]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

You do not know a damn thing about 3D printing, do you. (That's not a question.)

Of course...modern CAD-CAM machining means you can disassemble a gun, scan the parts, and MAKE a new one from metal stock! (It's not unusual...there are at least six places that can do this in the county where I live.)

The downside to metal printing is that it is expensive though. The thing about plastic printing, it can be had for 500 bucks. And you can still print working firearms from it.

That is today. Every year it gets more assessable and more advanced.

This issue with 3D printing isn't really the capabilities it affords us. We've always been able to make our on weapons. The real challenge of 3D printing is that it takes the same issues we're struggling with regarding copyrights and electronic data, and injects them (literally ) into patents and manufacturing.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

You do not know a damn thing about 3D printing, do you. (That's not a question.)

Of course...modern CAD-CAM machining means you can disassemble a gun, scan the parts, and MAKE a new one from metal stock! (It's not unusual...there are at least six places that can do this in the county where I live.)

The downside to metal printing is that it is expensive though. The thing about plastic printing, it can be had for 500 bucks. And you can still print working firearms from it.

That is today. Every year it gets more assessable and more advanced.

This issue with 3D printing isn't really the capabilities it affords us. We've always been able to make our on weapons. The real challenge of 3D printing is that it takes the same issues we're struggling with regarding copyrights and electronic data, and injects them (literally ) into patents and manufacturing.

Sure it is.

In order to make your own weapon you had to have ingenuity and be resourceful. Even then, it was as likely to blow up in your face as it was liable to work.

3D printing has changed that drastically. I can literally print a gun out by purchasing a single printer and pressing a button. VERY simply. The files are easy to obtain online.

 

[bripat9643]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

You do not know a damn thing about 3D printing, do you. (That's not a question.)

Of course...modern CAD-CAM machining means you can disassemble a gun, scan the parts, and MAKE a new one from metal stock! (It's not unusual...there are at least six places that can do this in the county where I live.)

The downside to metal printing is that it is expensive though. The thing about plastic printing, it can be had for 500 bucks. And you can still print working firearms from it.

That is today. Every year it gets more assessable and more advanced.

Manufacturers of gas turbine engines are going to start manufacturing the turbine blades and other difficult to machine parts by using 3D printing. They can manufacture parts that just wouldn't be possible using conventional methods. the result will be turbine blades that can withstand higher temperatures and thereby allow them to build a more efficient engine.

 

[Carib Gyal]

We've always owned guns. I don't think they've ever been "legal."

If I ever need to, I will use them to "shoot" people who try to "harm" me or mine.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

I started to give you a link to several times, but after Google gave me 6,120,000 hits in 0.79 seconds, I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

Then one should be easy to come by.

Otherwise you are blowing smoke. I see all over the place that they do not advocate for it, do not want it as a required technology and do not suggest anyone use it. Where have they advocated for a ban?

Actively working to prevent it's sale is advocating a ban.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.”

What is your issue here? Thank god this was knocked down. Being upset about a divorce nearly 30 years ago does not justify denying a person their constitutional rights.

 

[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?

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.

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

This is the problem - anti-gun advocates are ignorant to actual facts. I don't just THINK you can print a completely plastic gun, I KNOW you can because it has already been done - several times. They are presenting new challenges as plastic guns are not detectable by metal detectors and can pass through security rather easily at this point. Right now, high capacity is not out there but that is coming.




And then there are the older versions that use parts of another weapon:


Very effective because the lower reviver is the part that is controlled. Then again, it has already been shown that you can manufacture a barrel from plastic that is effective.

I hope you aren't including me as one of those so called anti-gun advocates. I have always, and will continue to have and enjoy guns. Wanting common sense regulations is far from wanting to eliminate guns. Of course you can print a plastic gun, and it might even be able to be fired a few times, but if you are saying that anyone will be able to just print up their own that has the quality and dependability of what is presently available, that's just nuts. I guess, in time, it might happen, but I'm still waiting on those flying cars we were promised so many years ago. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's just funny. You think you're going to just print your own gun. I guess you might be able to produce something, you know, something like the zip guns shown in old prison movies made out of a toothbrush, a ball point pen and a couple of rubber bands, but home printing of a usable gun is nowhere near possible. You planning on making your barrel out of plastic?

You do not know a damn thing about 3D printing, do you. (That's not a question.)

Of course...modern CAD-CAM machining means you can disassemble a gun, scan the parts, and MAKE a new one from metal stock! (It's not unusual...there are at least six places that can do this in the county where I live.)

No, I don't know a thing about 3D printing, but I suppose I could remove the spindle from my mill and mount an extruder and start learning. My scanning and cad programs would work for that to. If you think there are only six places in the country that can do 3D printing, obviously, you don't know a thing about it.