What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[Daryl Hunt]

The dirty diaper fool spoke for the NRA.

Lol
See I told you so, he does sure make you bedwetters wet the bed...

Not really, but he wet his pants by choice. He nasty..

Lol
Like I said draft dodgers like him represent himself and only himself much like slick Willy also a draft dodger...

No he wasn't. He had legitimate deferments for college and then was in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

Lol
What a fucking joke, he was a child molesting piece of shit and still is. Legitimate deferment?whatever! shut the fuck up you moron

Grab'em by the Pu##, If she wasn't my daughter, with bone spurs and you support whom again?

 

[Blues Man]

No it doesn't

Persons Banned From Firearm Possession
The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 makes it illegal for a person who fits into any of the following categories to receive or possess a firearm. These laws prevent the State from issuing a Pistol Permit because it would be illegal for people who fit in these categories, by Federal law, to own or possess a gun.

• Fugitives from justice
• Persons who are unlawful users of or are addicted to narcotics or any other controlled substances
• Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution
• Persons who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Persons who are under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Military veterans discharged under dishonorable conditions
• Persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship
• Aliens illegally in the U.S.
• Persons subject to a court order that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• And persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

So if a person sells to any of these people he is committing a crime

Only if it can be proven that the seller knew of any of that. Without any kind of background check, the seller is able to say he wasn't aware of any of that, and sell to whomever he wants.

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

Nope. The seller is not required to do anything to determine whether any buyer is allowed to have a gun. You expect him to conduct his own personal background check before he makes the sale? Universal background checks would solve that part of the problem.

So tell me how many guns are sold in private sales where the seller doesn't know who he is selling to.

if it's as big a problem as you say it is it should be easy for you to answer that question but let me show you this before you do your internet search

What percentage of gun sales done with no background check?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That's a bet you shouldn't take. And I won't bet on the other way around. A 7 week period is just someone looking for a news item when they are trying to make a slanted point. If you notice, using your own cite, almost all other crimes were down. Plus, the increase was attributed to just one area. And you can bet that there is an increase in law enforcement being done there today. You can't know where to increase your cops until AFTER it's needed.

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Even when there was a union the cops did this. And, the unions drove most of the trucking companies out of business. Now there are only a few huge trucking companies. All of the independents are long gone. My friends dad worked for Churchill truck lines in Kansas City. The Teamsters went on strike even after the owner told them that he wouldn't survive if they did. They did anyway. 30 minutes later they all trooped out, and he closed his doors putting hundreds out of work.

Typical union morons.

How do I put this nicely. There are many businesses that shouldn't even be in business. The sooner we can get them done and gone the sooner we can allow the good businesses to flourish. Those hundreds had jobs waiting from the at good trucking companies. Right now, there is a huge shortage of Truckers. And the pay is pretty damned good. If I were 15 years younger I would be driving a Truck. It pays as well as the Oil Field, has about the same hours and it's a damn sight easier on the body. So don't give me that crap about how the Teamsters destroyed the business. If it had been a healthy business the Company would have been able to afford to options; work with the Union or pay the Drivers enough that they didn't need the Union in the first place. They chose to do neither for reasons of their own. It's not politics, it's business and economics.

Care to guess what percentage of the employees didn't actually do any work thanks to the "work rules" the union imposed?

Prep Schools Graduate Nothing But Birchers, Commies, and RINOs

What work did the idle-rich parasites who owned the company do?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Only if it can be proven that the seller knew of any of that. Without any kind of background check, the seller is able to say he wasn't aware of any of that, and sell to whomever he wants.

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

Nope. The seller is not required to do anything to determine whether any buyer is allowed to have a gun. You expect him to conduct his own personal background check before he makes the sale? Universal background checks would solve that part of the problem.

So tell me how many guns are sold in private sales where the seller doesn't know who he is selling to.

if it's as big a problem as you say it is it should be easy for you to answer that question but let me show you this before you do your internet search

What percentage of gun sales done with no background check?

22% versus 25%. Not enough to worry about. But they weren't looking at the border states.

Texas has about a 40% of people buying without background checks. That isn't the number of guns transferred, that's just the number of buyers. If a person goes through a Gun Shop, they are required to go through a background check and any large or continuous sale of firearms are required to be reported by the gun dealer. When they are done outside the gun shops, there are no limits. There are hundreds of thousands of AR style guns sold out of the border states over the last decade that have gone south for the winter. Just remember, they check the vehicles and light trucks coming into the US not going out. Drug Cartels have more guns than the Mexican Police can afford to buy. And at least as many,if not more, than the Mexican Military. Those aren't primarily AKs shooting at our border guards, those are US manufactured ARs and Clones.

You may be able to bully bulldog but this Shepherd Mix ain't so easy, cupcake.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

The whole good guy with a gun thing misunderstood

What you fail to understand is that no civilian has the obligation to stop a crime.

Shit the fucking cops don't have to respond to a call from a citizen

A good guy with a gun commits no crime with his gun or without therefore law abiding people who own and carry guns are not a factor in crime and murder stats

Gun nuts and the NRA consider an armed thug on the way to his first armed robbery to be a good guy with a gun right up until the second he robs the store.

That's a flawed argument

I could argue you are a drunk driver in waiting so should I suspend your drivers licence today?
I could argue that you are an abusive parent in waiting so should I call DCF to have your kids taken away?

/---/ All of the gun grabbers arguments are flawed.

Real Americans Must Amputate Both Wings of the Ruling-Class Vulture

If union members become gunowners, Rightists will become the gungrabbers. So will Leftists, because they are spoiled snobs who have nothing but contempt for blue-collar workers.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Left has bought into the Media and Democrat driven mantra that all guns are bad, and that they cause violence all by themselves. They don't care if the law abiding is defenseless. They are OK with the victim mentality, and the total dependency, and hence control of GOVERNMENT.

Shows Show Only the Shallow

Notice how Hollywood, in The Sixth Sense, mandates that one of the ghosts be a kid who had accidentally killed himself with his father's gun. If, to balance the presentation, one of the ghosts had been a thug who got what he was born to get by getting killed by a concealed-carry patriot, that film would have never gotten financed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Gun nuts are the ones that have an irrational fear of them. It is an inanimate object. It holds no power until someone USES It. Fear the bad guys that use guns illegally. Punish them.

Americans Are Chickenfeed for Chickenhawks

Actually, that fear of guns happened to me because of being shot at dozens of times in Vietnam. Even though it was irrational, it was influenced by the prevalent sissy psychiatry and the fact that those who created all the narratives we are allowed to listen to were unpatriotic cowards who ran away to college to avoid the draft.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

Read the news sometime and you will see they are trying to confiscate one step at a time. A new regulation here, a new regulation there, and before you know it, all those regulations will add up to it being virtually impossible to own a firearm. That's why the cancer has to be stopped at first detection.

Democrats are like terrorists. They use increments to reach their ultimate goal and are plenty patient.

New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Signs Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

Do you mean if I vote for a Democrat I immediately must want to confiscate your firearms? Only if you are a danger to Society and yourself. And then only if a Judge rules for your guns to be temporarily removed either by a Law Enforcement or another Family Member. And then, only until the condition either passes or it becomes necessary to have you committed. But before those guns can be removed, you MUST have your time in court to state your case. Welcome to Colorado.

Wrong. Democrats all over the country are trying to make guns illegal baby step by baby step. In the past they have made suggestions on ways to disarm the public without going too far that would involve a Supreme Court ruling.

If it's not private sales background checks, it's taxes on ammunition. If it's not taxes on ammunition, it's magazine capacity. If it's not magazine capacity, it's semi-automatic weapons. The list goes on and on.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-newspaper-removes-gun-permit-database-from-website-after-outcry

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

NY Gun Confiscation - Citizens Told to Turn in Firearms
\
New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

Targeted? Gun sellers’ ‘high risk’ label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business

Senate Dems, Led by Feinstein, Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

The Pauxsnews source has been redacted and removed from the net. It's made up. It's a lie. Someone made it up and Pawssnews ran with it.

Insurance? Now, that went a long ways. Yes, a handful wanted to treat guns like cars and drives licenses but it didn't amount to anything and went nowhere. MOST Democrats had a big laugh and moved on. Even so, it's not against the 2nd Amendment, each state can make that determination (none have done this but 3 have considered it) and it would change nothing. Let's face it, if you were required to have liability insurance to own a gun and couldn't get it, I would seriously question if you should own a gun in the first place. There would have to be a pretty damned good reason that the Insurance Company would turn you down. It sounds like a pretty good insurance scam for the insurance companies. But everyone had a good guffaw and moved on.

NY Gun Confiscation: Wow, what a reach on this one. The only ones that this affected were those that have a history using powerful psychotropic drugs. Is this a new market that the NRA wants to establish that they think they can exploit?. You are aware that anyone using illegal drugs by federal standards is not supposed to own firearms, don't you? I guess you support the Mass Murders since most of them have also been under those powerful drugs. Wow, if there aren't enough sickos with guns, we make more through chemistry.

NYC confiscating Rifles and Shotguns. Wow, another one. These are are for the internal ammo storage type like a pump shotgun or a standard top load rifle uses. These have been illegal for decades by Federal Standard. The exception to the rule is the 22 rifle that has no limit in it's tube. Shotguns with a capacity to hold more than 5 shells can be modified by placing a slug or spacer in the tube to prevent more than 5 round storage. And they haven't made a Rifle with internal ammo storage with more than 5 rounds for decades. I followed the links and here is what I found. It leads to another "Fantasy" site. And So It Begins: New York Sending Out Gun Confiscation Notices - The Truth About Guns
If you look at the supposed letter, you will notice that the only 3 entries on it where the owners are blanked out is for three 22 lr rifles to be turned in with more than 5 rounds. Newsflash: It's a friggin hoax. The 22LR Rifles are exempt and can hold as many shells as their tubes can take. Another Lie, or fake news.


Targeted Guns Sellers Where do you get this. You need to do standup comedy with this material. The Investigation was for Online Businesses that were at the highest rate of damage to the customers. It just so happens that many of them were Online Gun Dealers and Accessory Dealers. Most of those were shut down. Do you mean that if I were to put up a Gun Scam online that you would defend my right to do so? Must be, that's what you are doing here.

Introducing an Assault Weapons Ban Do you see what I see? Hasn't that been tried before and failed in the court systems? And you say that ALL democrats supported it? Using your own cite, most of the Dems did NOT support it and it went absolutely no where. Once more, you are lying out your ass.

NJ House to House Confiscation Here is a gem from you. Yes, in 2013, NJ passed a law that there would be no more mags with more than a 10 round capacity sold, traded, etc. in the state. Colorado passed the same law. Are you aware, it was grandfathered in? That means, if you have one with more than 10, you need to keep it in your home where it's legal. Taking it out of your home, it might be confiscated. But inside your home, it's legal. You can parade around your house wearing nothing more than a red ribbon on your private parts and no one will care as long as you keep your drapes closed. The orginating source was Brietbart who is pretty much at the bottom of the truth scale on anything, they just make shit up.

Please stop making shit up.

Not making anything up. The point is Democrats want to take away guns by using baby steps to do so. Like I said, magazine size, type of guns, and yes, medical conditions. It's the same thing DumBama did before he left office. He stopped sales to people on SS who were being cared for by somebody else in regards to paying bills. Trump rescinded the law because it's complete stupidity that some old people who can't write a check or not tech savvy enough to pay bills online be a danger to society.

So yes, NJ put a magazine law in place. Regardless if it's grandfathered or not, you cannot use the weapon. So what good is it since most people use their weapons outside of their home? How does one depend on a weapon they can't practice with? I seen nothing in the article about a Grandfather clause and that would need some explaining since they want to confiscate those weapons. If it's Grandfathered in, then there is no need to confiscate anything.

Shotgun rifle law. If it's illegal on a federal level, why is the city creating laws that are already on the federal books? Why did they say you can move the weapon to another location outside of the city provided you give them the address of the location of that weapon? If it's illegal, how does the city have records of it existing?

The assault weapons ban was not stopped in court. In fact the country had that ban for ten years. The Republican Congress decided not to renew it after it's expiration since it didn't show any positive results. But that doesn't mean with enough power, the Democrats won't put it back in place.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
See I told you so, he does sure make you bedwetters wet the bed...

Not really, but he wet his pants by choice. He nasty..

Lol
Like I said draft dodgers like him represent himself and only himself much like slick Willy also a draft dodger...

No he wasn't. He had legitimate deferments for college and then was in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

Lol
What a fucking joke, he was a child molesting piece of shit and still is. Legitimate deferment?whatever! shut the fuck up you moron

Grab'em by the Pu##, If she wasn't my daughter, with bone spurs and you support whom again?

Lol
The difference between Trump and slick Willy… Slick Willy did all those things while in office Trump did not.

 

[Pilot1]

Gun nuts are the ones that have an irrational fear of them. It is an inanimate object. It holds no power until someone USES It. Fear the bad guys that use guns illegally. Punish them.

Americans Are Chickenfeed for Chickenhawks

Actually, that fear of guns happened to me because of being shot at dozens of times in Vietnam. Even though it was irrational, it was influenced by the prevalent sissy psychiatry and the fact that those who created all the narratives we are allowed to listen to were unpatriotic cowards who ran away to college to avoid the draft.

Well if anyone shot at me in Vietnam, I'd have a rational fear of firearms, but more fear of Commies with an SKS. I was way too young for that one, but no way I'd be on the ground. F-4, F-5 or anything with wings for me except FAC's. Those guys had as much balls as you guys.

Thanks for your service.

 

[hadit]

So you should have a background check before you have kids too.

When it gets to where my kid can accidentally go off and kill you in Walmart, we can talk about background checks for kids.

Lol
You like to dig into people’s personal lives apparently, It doesn’t get any more personal than firearm ownership.
You need to mind your own fucking business, your weasel like behavior betrays you

You gonna caps lock me into submission?

Mind your own business, other fire ownership is none of your business... That’s what the Second Amendment is for, telling you creepy motherfuckers is to stay out of peoples personal lives. Lol

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

Concealed carry is not a fashion statement. CONCEALED, remember?

 

[BULLDOG]

Only if it can be proven that the seller knew of any of that. Without any kind of background check, the seller is able to say he wasn't aware of any of that, and sell to whomever he wants.

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

Nope. The seller is not required to do anything to determine whether any buyer is allowed to have a gun. You expect him to conduct his own personal background check before he makes the sale? Universal background checks would solve that part of the problem.

So tell me how many guns are sold in private sales where the seller doesn't know who he is selling to.

if it's as big a problem as you say it is it should be easy for you to answer that question but let me show you this before you do your internet search

What percentage of gun sales done with no background check?

Online surveys are not accurate mostly for the fact that the person has to opt in to the survey. A person with a less than strong opinion about a subject is unlikely to bother to participate. Another method that can easily skew an online survey is to selectively choose which sites the survey is presented on, but there are many other subtle ways an online survey can be thrown one direction or another.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When it gets to where my kid can accidentally go off and kill you in Walmart, we can talk about background checks for kids.

Lol
You like to dig into people’s personal lives apparently, It doesn’t get any more personal than firearm ownership.
You need to mind your own fucking business, your weasel like behavior betrays you

You gonna caps lock me into submission?

Mind your own business, other fire ownership is none of your business... That’s what the Second Amendment is for, telling you creepy motherfuckers is to stay out of peoples personal lives. Lol

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

Concealed carry is not a fashion statement. CONCEALED, remember?

It also exposes the lie of ‘gun free zones.’ CONCEALED, remember?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

Read the news sometime and you will see they are trying to confiscate one step at a time. A new regulation here, a new regulation there, and before you know it, all those regulations will add up to it being virtually impossible to own a firearm. That's why the cancer has to be stopped at first detection.

Democrats are like terrorists. They use increments to reach their ultimate goal and are plenty patient.

New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Signs Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

Do you mean if I vote for a Democrat I immediately must want to confiscate your firearms? Only if you are a danger to Society and yourself. And then only if a Judge rules for your guns to be temporarily removed either by a Law Enforcement or another Family Member. And then, only until the condition either passes or it becomes necessary to have you committed. But before those guns can be removed, you MUST have your time in court to state your case. Welcome to Colorado.

Wrong. Democrats all over the country are trying to make guns illegal baby step by baby step. In the past they have made suggestions on ways to disarm the public without going too far that would involve a Supreme Court ruling.

If it's not private sales background checks, it's taxes on ammunition. If it's not taxes on ammunition, it's magazine capacity. If it's not magazine capacity, it's semi-automatic weapons. The list goes on and on.

New York newspaper removes gun permit database from website after outcry

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

NY Gun Confiscation - Citizens Told to Turn in Firearms
\
New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

Targeted? Gun sellers’ ‘high risk’ label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business

Senate Dems, Led by Feinstein, Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

The Pauxsnews source has been redacted and removed from the net. It's made up. It's a lie. Someone made it up and Pawssnews ran with it.

Insurance? Now, that went a long ways. Yes, a handful wanted to treat guns like cars and drives licenses but it didn't amount to anything and went nowhere. MOST Democrats had a big laugh and moved on. Even so, it's not against the 2nd Amendment, each state can make that determination (none have done this but 3 have considered it) and it would change nothing. Let's face it, if you were required to have liability insurance to own a gun and couldn't get it, I would seriously question if you should own a gun in the first place. There would have to be a pretty damned good reason that the Insurance Company would turn you down. It sounds like a pretty good insurance scam for the insurance companies. But everyone had a good guffaw and moved on.

NY Gun Confiscation: Wow, what a reach on this one. The only ones that this affected were those that have a history using powerful psychotropic drugs. Is this a new market that the NRA wants to establish that they think they can exploit?. You are aware that anyone using illegal drugs by federal standards is not supposed to own firearms, don't you? I guess you support the Mass Murders since most of them have also been under those powerful drugs. Wow, if there aren't enough sickos with guns, we make more through chemistry.

NYC confiscating Rifles and Shotguns. Wow, another one. These are are for the internal ammo storage type like a pump shotgun or a standard top load rifle uses. These have been illegal for decades by Federal Standard. The exception to the rule is the 22 rifle that has no limit in it's tube. Shotguns with a capacity to hold more than 5 shells can be modified by placing a slug or spacer in the tube to prevent more than 5 round storage. And they haven't made a Rifle with internal ammo storage with more than 5 rounds for decades. I followed the links and here is what I found. It leads to another "Fantasy" site. And So It Begins: New York Sending Out Gun Confiscation Notices - The Truth About Guns
If you look at the supposed letter, you will notice that the only 3 entries on it where the owners are blanked out is for three 22 lr rifles to be turned in with more than 5 rounds. Newsflash: It's a friggin hoax. The 22LR Rifles are exempt and can hold as many shells as their tubes can take. Another Lie, or fake news.


Targeted Guns Sellers Where do you get this. You need to do standup comedy with this material. The Investigation was for Online Businesses that were at the highest rate of damage to the customers. It just so happens that many of them were Online Gun Dealers and Accessory Dealers. Most of those were shut down. Do you mean that if I were to put up a Gun Scam online that you would defend my right to do so? Must be, that's what you are doing here.

Introducing an Assault Weapons Ban Do you see what I see? Hasn't that been tried before and failed in the court systems? And you say that ALL democrats supported it? Using your own cite, most of the Dems did NOT support it and it went absolutely no where. Once more, you are lying out your ass.

NJ House to House Confiscation Here is a gem from you. Yes, in 2013, NJ passed a law that there would be no more mags with more than a 10 round capacity sold, traded, etc. in the state. Colorado passed the same law. Are you aware, it was grandfathered in? That means, if you have one with more than 10, you need to keep it in your home where it's legal. Taking it out of your home, it might be confiscated. But inside your home, it's legal. You can parade around your house wearing nothing more than a red ribbon on your private parts and no one will care as long as you keep your drapes closed. The orginating source was Brietbart who is pretty much at the bottom of the truth scale on anything, they just make shit up.

Please stop making shit up.

Not making anything up. The point is Democrats want to take away guns by using baby steps to do so. Like I said, magazine size, type of guns, and yes, medical conditions. It's the same thing DumBama did before he left office. He stopped sales to people on SS who were being cared for by somebody else in regards to paying bills. Trump rescinded the law because it's complete stupidity that some old people who can't write a check or not tech savvy enough to pay bills online be a danger to society.

So yes, NJ put a magazine law in place. Regardless if it's grandfathered or not, you cannot use the weapon. So what good is it since most people use their weapons outside of their home? How does one depend on a weapon they can't practice with? I seen nothing in the article about a Grandfather clause and that would need some explaining since they want to confiscate those weapons. If it's Grandfathered in, then there is no need to confiscate anything.

Shotgun rifle law. If it's illegal on a federal level, why is the city creating laws that are already on the federal books? Why did they say you can move the weapon to another location outside of the city provided you give them the address of the location of that weapon? If it's illegal, how does the city have records of it existing?

The assault weapons ban was not stopped in court. In fact the country had that ban for ten years. The Republican Congress decided not to renew it after it's expiration since it didn't show any positive results. But that doesn't mean with enough power, the Democrats won't put it back in place.

You can't weazel out the fact that your whole post was full of lies, false news and just plain and now you come back and try to justify it with more Bull Shit?/ You just keep keep making up more shit to cover up the shit you already shoveled. And your own cites confirms you are just shoveling more shit. Stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not really, but he wet his pants by choice. He nasty..

Lol
Like I said draft dodgers like him represent himself and only himself much like slick Willy also a draft dodger...

No he wasn't. He had legitimate deferments for college and then was in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

Lol
What a fucking joke, he was a child molesting piece of shit and still is. Legitimate deferment?whatever! shut the fuck up you moron

Grab'em by the Pu##, If she wasn't my daughter, with bone spurs and you support whom again?

Lol
The difference between Trump and slick Willy… Slick Willy did all those things while in office Trump did not.

Trump has his own list of things. He doesn't have time. Wished he did take the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Read the news sometime and you will see they are trying to confiscate one step at a time. A new regulation here, a new regulation there, and before you know it, all those regulations will add up to it being virtually impossible to own a firearm. That's why the cancer has to be stopped at first detection.

Democrats are like terrorists. They use increments to reach their ultimate goal and are plenty patient.

New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Signs Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

Do you mean if I vote for a Democrat I immediately must want to confiscate your firearms? Only if you are a danger to Society and yourself. And then only if a Judge rules for your guns to be temporarily removed either by a Law Enforcement or another Family Member. And then, only until the condition either passes or it becomes necessary to have you committed. But before those guns can be removed, you MUST have your time in court to state your case. Welcome to Colorado.

Wrong. Democrats all over the country are trying to make guns illegal baby step by baby step. In the past they have made suggestions on ways to disarm the public without going too far that would involve a Supreme Court ruling.

If it's not private sales background checks, it's taxes on ammunition. If it's not taxes on ammunition, it's magazine capacity. If it's not magazine capacity, it's semi-automatic weapons. The list goes on and on.

New York newspaper removes gun permit database from website after outcry

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

NY Gun Confiscation - Citizens Told to Turn in Firearms
\
New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

Targeted? Gun sellers’ ‘high risk’ label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business

Senate Dems, Led by Feinstein, Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

The Pauxsnews source has been redacted and removed from the net. It's made up. It's a lie. Someone made it up and Pawssnews ran with it.

Insurance? Now, that went a long ways. Yes, a handful wanted to treat guns like cars and drives licenses but it didn't amount to anything and went nowhere. MOST Democrats had a big laugh and moved on. Even so, it's not against the 2nd Amendment, each state can make that determination (none have done this but 3 have considered it) and it would change nothing. Let's face it, if you were required to have liability insurance to own a gun and couldn't get it, I would seriously question if you should own a gun in the first place. There would have to be a pretty damned good reason that the Insurance Company would turn you down. It sounds like a pretty good insurance scam for the insurance companies. But everyone had a good guffaw and moved on.

NY Gun Confiscation: Wow, what a reach on this one. The only ones that this affected were those that have a history using powerful psychotropic drugs. Is this a new market that the NRA wants to establish that they think they can exploit?. You are aware that anyone using illegal drugs by federal standards is not supposed to own firearms, don't you? I guess you support the Mass Murders since most of them have also been under those powerful drugs. Wow, if there aren't enough sickos with guns, we make more through chemistry.

NYC confiscating Rifles and Shotguns. Wow, another one. These are are for the internal ammo storage type like a pump shotgun or a standard top load rifle uses. These have been illegal for decades by Federal Standard. The exception to the rule is the 22 rifle that has no limit in it's tube. Shotguns with a capacity to hold more than 5 shells can be modified by placing a slug or spacer in the tube to prevent more than 5 round storage. And they haven't made a Rifle with internal ammo storage with more than 5 rounds for decades. I followed the links and here is what I found. It leads to another "Fantasy" site. And So It Begins: New York Sending Out Gun Confiscation Notices - The Truth About Guns
If you look at the supposed letter, you will notice that the only 3 entries on it where the owners are blanked out is for three 22 lr rifles to be turned in with more than 5 rounds. Newsflash: It's a friggin hoax. The 22LR Rifles are exempt and can hold as many shells as their tubes can take. Another Lie, or fake news.


Targeted Guns Sellers Where do you get this. You need to do standup comedy with this material. The Investigation was for Online Businesses that were at the highest rate of damage to the customers. It just so happens that many of them were Online Gun Dealers and Accessory Dealers. Most of those were shut down. Do you mean that if I were to put up a Gun Scam online that you would defend my right to do so? Must be, that's what you are doing here.

Introducing an Assault Weapons Ban Do you see what I see? Hasn't that been tried before and failed in the court systems? And you say that ALL democrats supported it? Using your own cite, most of the Dems did NOT support it and it went absolutely no where. Once more, you are lying out your ass.

NJ House to House Confiscation Here is a gem from you. Yes, in 2013, NJ passed a law that there would be no more mags with more than a 10 round capacity sold, traded, etc. in the state. Colorado passed the same law. Are you aware, it was grandfathered in? That means, if you have one with more than 10, you need to keep it in your home where it's legal. Taking it out of your home, it might be confiscated. But inside your home, it's legal. You can parade around your house wearing nothing more than a red ribbon on your private parts and no one will care as long as you keep your drapes closed. The orginating source was Brietbart who is pretty much at the bottom of the truth scale on anything, they just make shit up.

Please stop making shit up.

Not making anything up. The point is Democrats want to take away guns by using baby steps to do so. Like I said, magazine size, type of guns, and yes, medical conditions. It's the same thing DumBama did before he left office. He stopped sales to people on SS who were being cared for by somebody else in regards to paying bills. Trump rescinded the law because it's complete stupidity that some old people who can't write a check or not tech savvy enough to pay bills online be a danger to society.

So yes, NJ put a magazine law in place. Regardless if it's grandfathered or not, you cannot use the weapon. So what good is it since most people use their weapons outside of their home? How does one depend on a weapon they can't practice with? I seen nothing in the article about a Grandfather clause and that would need some explaining since they want to confiscate those weapons. If it's Grandfathered in, then there is no need to confiscate anything.

Shotgun rifle law. If it's illegal on a federal level, why is the city creating laws that are already on the federal books? Why did they say you can move the weapon to another location outside of the city provided you give them the address of the location of that weapon? If it's illegal, how does the city have records of it existing?

The assault weapons ban was not stopped in court. In fact the country had that ban for ten years. The Republican Congress decided not to renew it after it's expiration since it didn't show any positive results. But that doesn't mean with enough power, the Democrats won't put it back in place.

You can't weazel out the fact that your whole post was full of lies, false news and just plain and now you come back and try to justify it with more Bull Shit?/ You just keep keep making up more shit to cover up the shit you already shoveled. And your own cites confirms you are just shoveling more shit. Stop making shit up.

No, I used information from the sites and asked you some questions that backed you into a corner. Those are just the ones I have in my folder, I'm sure a Google search would bring up many, many more, but liberals all across the country are planning ways to take our guns without running into a SC battle which of course, they would lose.

Hell, it even happened in my city here. Cleveland wanted to try and sue gun manufacturers for liability in criminal shootings here. They didn't go very far because it would have been a costly and losing battle. But they are still working night and day to figure out new plots to try out or at the very least, introduce.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do you mean if I vote for a Democrat I immediately must want to confiscate your firearms? Only if you are a danger to Society and yourself. And then only if a Judge rules for your guns to be temporarily removed either by a Law Enforcement or another Family Member. And then, only until the condition either passes or it becomes necessary to have you committed. But before those guns can be removed, you MUST have your time in court to state your case. Welcome to Colorado.

Wrong. Democrats all over the country are trying to make guns illegal baby step by baby step. In the past they have made suggestions on ways to disarm the public without going too far that would involve a Supreme Court ruling.

If it's not private sales background checks, it's taxes on ammunition. If it's not taxes on ammunition, it's magazine capacity. If it's not magazine capacity, it's semi-automatic weapons. The list goes on and on.

New York newspaper removes gun permit database from website after outcry

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

NY Gun Confiscation - Citizens Told to Turn in Firearms
\
New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

Targeted? Gun sellers’ ‘high risk’ label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business

Senate Dems, Led by Feinstein, Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

The Pauxsnews source has been redacted and removed from the net. It's made up. It's a lie. Someone made it up and Pawssnews ran with it.

Insurance? Now, that went a long ways. Yes, a handful wanted to treat guns like cars and drives licenses but it didn't amount to anything and went nowhere. MOST Democrats had a big laugh and moved on. Even so, it's not against the 2nd Amendment, each state can make that determination (none have done this but 3 have considered it) and it would change nothing. Let's face it, if you were required to have liability insurance to own a gun and couldn't get it, I would seriously question if you should own a gun in the first place. There would have to be a pretty damned good reason that the Insurance Company would turn you down. It sounds like a pretty good insurance scam for the insurance companies. But everyone had a good guffaw and moved on.

NY Gun Confiscation: Wow, what a reach on this one. The only ones that this affected were those that have a history using powerful psychotropic drugs. Is this a new market that the NRA wants to establish that they think they can exploit?. You are aware that anyone using illegal drugs by federal standards is not supposed to own firearms, don't you? I guess you support the Mass Murders since most of them have also been under those powerful drugs. Wow, if there aren't enough sickos with guns, we make more through chemistry.

NYC confiscating Rifles and Shotguns. Wow, another one. These are are for the internal ammo storage type like a pump shotgun or a standard top load rifle uses. These have been illegal for decades by Federal Standard. The exception to the rule is the 22 rifle that has no limit in it's tube. Shotguns with a capacity to hold more than 5 shells can be modified by placing a slug or spacer in the tube to prevent more than 5 round storage. And they haven't made a Rifle with internal ammo storage with more than 5 rounds for decades. I followed the links and here is what I found. It leads to another "Fantasy" site. And So It Begins: New York Sending Out Gun Confiscation Notices - The Truth About Guns
If you look at the supposed letter, you will notice that the only 3 entries on it where the owners are blanked out is for three 22 lr rifles to be turned in with more than 5 rounds. Newsflash: It's a friggin hoax. The 22LR Rifles are exempt and can hold as many shells as their tubes can take. Another Lie, or fake news.


Targeted Guns Sellers Where do you get this. You need to do standup comedy with this material. The Investigation was for Online Businesses that were at the highest rate of damage to the customers. It just so happens that many of them were Online Gun Dealers and Accessory Dealers. Most of those were shut down. Do you mean that if I were to put up a Gun Scam online that you would defend my right to do so? Must be, that's what you are doing here.

Introducing an Assault Weapons Ban Do you see what I see? Hasn't that been tried before and failed in the court systems? And you say that ALL democrats supported it? Using your own cite, most of the Dems did NOT support it and it went absolutely no where. Once more, you are lying out your ass.

NJ House to House Confiscation Here is a gem from you. Yes, in 2013, NJ passed a law that there would be no more mags with more than a 10 round capacity sold, traded, etc. in the state. Colorado passed the same law. Are you aware, it was grandfathered in? That means, if you have one with more than 10, you need to keep it in your home where it's legal. Taking it out of your home, it might be confiscated. But inside your home, it's legal. You can parade around your house wearing nothing more than a red ribbon on your private parts and no one will care as long as you keep your drapes closed. The orginating source was Brietbart who is pretty much at the bottom of the truth scale on anything, they just make shit up.

Please stop making shit up.

Not making anything up. The point is Democrats want to take away guns by using baby steps to do so. Like I said, magazine size, type of guns, and yes, medical conditions. It's the same thing DumBama did before he left office. He stopped sales to people on SS who were being cared for by somebody else in regards to paying bills. Trump rescinded the law because it's complete stupidity that some old people who can't write a check or not tech savvy enough to pay bills online be a danger to society.

So yes, NJ put a magazine law in place. Regardless if it's grandfathered or not, you cannot use the weapon. So what good is it since most people use their weapons outside of their home? How does one depend on a weapon they can't practice with? I seen nothing in the article about a Grandfather clause and that would need some explaining since they want to confiscate those weapons. If it's Grandfathered in, then there is no need to confiscate anything.

Shotgun rifle law. If it's illegal on a federal level, why is the city creating laws that are already on the federal books? Why did they say you can move the weapon to another location outside of the city provided you give them the address of the location of that weapon? If it's illegal, how does the city have records of it existing?

The assault weapons ban was not stopped in court. In fact the country had that ban for ten years. The Republican Congress decided not to renew it after it's expiration since it didn't show any positive results. But that doesn't mean with enough power, the Democrats won't put it back in place.

You can't weazel out the fact that your whole post was full of lies, false news and just plain and now you come back and try to justify it with more Bull Shit?/ You just keep keep making up more shit to cover up the shit you already shoveled. And your own cites confirms you are just shoveling more shit. Stop making shit up.

No, I used information from the sites and asked you some questions that backed you into a corner. Those are just the ones I have in my folder, I'm sure a Google search would bring up many, many more, but liberals all across the country are planning ways to take our guns without running into a SC battle which of course, they would lose.

Hell, it even happened in my city here. Cleveland wanted to try and sue gun manufacturers for liability in criminal shootings here. They didn't go very far because it would have been a costly and losing battle. But they are still working night and day to figure out new plots to try out or at the very least, introduce.

Respond to my response to your cites. Here, let me do it again.

The Pauxsnews source has been redacted and removed from the net. It's made up. It's a lie. Someone made it up and Pawssnews ran with it.

Insurance? Now, that went a long ways. Yes, a handful wanted to treat guns like cars and drives licenses but it didn't amount to anything and went nowhere. MOST Democrats had a big laugh and moved on. Even so, it's not against the 2nd Amendment, each state can make that determination (none have done this but 3 have considered it) and it would change nothing. Let's face it, if you were required to have liability insurance to own a gun and couldn't get it, I would seriously question if you should own a gun in the first place. There would have to be a pretty damned good reason that the Insurance Company would turn you down. It sounds like a pretty good insurance scam for the insurance companies. But everyone had a good guffaw and moved on.

NY Gun Confiscation: Wow, what a reach on this one. The only ones that this affected were those that have a history using powerful psychotropic drugs. Is this a new market that the NRA wants to establish that they think they can exploit?. You are aware that anyone using illegal drugs by federal standards is not supposed to own firearms, don't you? I guess you support the Mass Murders since most of them have also been under those powerful drugs. Wow, if there aren't enough sickos with guns, we make more through chemistry.

NYC confiscating Rifles and Shotguns. Wow, another one. These are are for the internal ammo storage type like a pump shotgun or a standard top load rifle uses. These have been illegal for decades by Federal Standard. The exception to the rule is the 22 rifle that has no limit in it's tube. Shotguns with a capacity to hold more than 5 shells can be modified by placing a slug or spacer in the tube to prevent more than 5 round storage. And they haven't made a Rifle with internal ammo storage with more than 5 rounds for decades. I followed the links and here is what I found. It leads to another "Fantasy" site. And So It Begins: New York Sending Out Gun Confiscation Notices - The Truth About Guns
If you look at the supposed letter, you will notice that the only 3 entries on it where the owners are blanked out is for three 22 lr rifles to be turned in with more than 5 rounds. Newsflash: It's a friggin hoax. The 22LR Rifles are exempt and can hold as many shells as their tubes can take. Another Lie, or fake news.


Targeted Guns Sellers Where do you get this. You need to do standup comedy with this material. The Investigation was for Online Businesses that were at the highest rate of damage to the customers. It just so happens that many of them were Online Gun Dealers and Accessory Dealers. Most of those were shut down. Do you mean that if I were to put up a Gun Scam online that you would defend my right to do so? Must be, that's what you are doing here.

Introducing an Assault Weapons Ban Do you see what I see? Hasn't that been tried before and failed in the court systems? And you say that ALL democrats supported it? Using your own cite, most of the Dems did NOT support it and it went absolutely no where. Once more, you are lying out your ass.

NJ House to House Confiscation Here is a gem from you. Yes, in 2013, NJ passed a law that there would be no more mags with more than a 10 round capacity sold, traded, etc. in the state. Colorado passed the same law. Are you aware, it was grandfathered in? That means, if you have one with more than 10, you need to keep it in your home where it's legal. Taking it out of your home, it might be confiscated. But inside your home, it's legal. You can parade around your house wearing nothing more than a red ribbon on your private parts and no one will care as long as you keep your drapes closed. The orginating source was Brietbart who is pretty much at the bottom of the truth scale on anything, they just make shit up.

Please stop making shit up.

 

[hadit]

Lol
You like to dig into people’s personal lives apparently, It doesn’t get any more personal than firearm ownership.
You need to mind your own fucking business, your weasel like behavior betrays you

You gonna caps lock me into submission?

Mind your own business, other fire ownership is none of your business... That’s what the Second Amendment is for, telling you creepy motherfuckers is to stay out of peoples personal lives. Lol

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

Concealed carry is not a fashion statement. CONCEALED, remember?

It also exposes the lie of ‘gun free zones.’ CONCEALED, remember?

What lie? A deranged person, out to kill as many as he can, will always choose a place that is advertised to have the lowest number of potential adversaries and the greatest number of defenseless victims. Or do you think differently? If so, why?

If you see an epidemic of attempted mass shootings in police stations at night, be sure to let us know.

 

[Blues Man]

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

Nope. The seller is not required to do anything to determine whether any buyer is allowed to have a gun. You expect him to conduct his own personal background check before he makes the sale? Universal background checks would solve that part of the problem.

So tell me how many guns are sold in private sales where the seller doesn't know who he is selling to.

if it's as big a problem as you say it is it should be easy for you to answer that question but let me show you this before you do your internet search

What percentage of gun sales done with no background check?

22% versus 25%. Not enough to worry about. But they weren't looking at the border states.

Texas has about a 40% of people buying without background checks. That isn't the number of guns transferred, that's just the number of buyers. If a person goes through a Gun Shop, they are required to go through a background check and any large or continuous sale of firearms are required to be reported by the gun dealer. When they are done outside the gun shops, there are no limits. There are hundreds of thousands of AR style guns sold out of the border states over the last decade that have gone south for the winter. Just remember, they check the vehicles and light trucks coming into the US not going out. Drug Cartels have more guns than the Mexican Police can afford to buy. And at least as many,if not more, than the Mexican Military. Those aren't primarily AKs shooting at our border guards, those are US manufactured ARs and Clones.

You may be able to bully bulldog but this Shepherd Mix ain't so easy, cupcake.

even the 22% is suspect because it includes people that inherited guns and gifts of guns

 

[Blues Man]

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

Nope. The seller is not required to do anything to determine whether any buyer is allowed to have a gun. You expect him to conduct his own personal background check before he makes the sale? Universal background checks would solve that part of the problem.

So tell me how many guns are sold in private sales where the seller doesn't know who he is selling to.

if it's as big a problem as you say it is it should be easy for you to answer that question but let me show you this before you do your internet search

What percentage of gun sales done with no background check?

Online surveys are not accurate mostly for the fact that the person has to opt in to the survey. A person with a less than strong opinion about a subject is unlikely to bother to participate. Another method that can easily skew an online survey is to selectively choose which sites the survey is presented on, but there are many other subtle ways an online survey can be thrown one direction or another.

That holds true for all surveys

but why don't you tell me how many guns are sold in private sales every year and then tell me how many of those guns are used in crimes