GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2013, 10:03   #101
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
All law abiding gun owners follow the law now. Otherwise they wouldn't be law abiding.

I can sell a gun to a felon with a history of mental illness and drug addiction and break no law. FTF sale - I have no obligation to check anything.

Yes I am still considered to be a law abiding citizen.

But the majority of folks that are law abiding can do a simple thing - can I see your CHL (or GBC)? Many will do this even if no law requires it. Give the average Joe an easy way to make sure the guy they are selling the gun to a way to check - it would help.



You, nor anyone else has shown this to be problem now.

You trying to say that no criminal or crazy has ever purchased a gun in a FTF sale from an upstanding citizen that would not have sold the gun if they had know the buyer was a criminal or crazy?


So why argue for a new law, new restrictions, new costs, and more government intrusion IF you already know the law will not work to stop the people already disallowed from possessing a firearm to posses them?

It would help - no question about it - like I said it is like a condom.
How about -

If you show me a CHL (or GBC) - I have a safe harbor against any prosecution or civil liability - if the gun I sell is later used in a "bad" way.


Last edited by Z71bill; 02-06-2013 at 10:13..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:11   #102
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mushinto View Post
Your ideas are nice, but that is not the type of laws they are proposing.

What about the millions of gun collectors who do not have / want / qualify for a carry permit?

And, your idea would require modification of the sacred Brady law, because currently a permit does not always allow one to avoid a background check.
Why do we wait for "them" to propose anything?

We are always playing defence.

I don't care how good your team is - if you are always playing defence you will always lose in the end - you can never win.

I am using the CHL as an example - you would need another / additional method. I called it a GBC (gun buying card).

Not understanding the Brady law - if my CHL avoids a BGC or not is state law. Are you talking about state laws the Brady bunch has gotten passed?

Screw them - let them explain why I have to pass a BGC every time I buy a gun. I have already passed dozens of them - how does passing one more to buy my 21ST (whatever) gun provide any positive impact?

Make them come out and admit they want complete registration - prevent them from hiding behind the universal BGC / gun show loop hole spin BS.

Last edited by Z71bill; 02-06-2013 at 10:16..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:17   #103
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo The Okie Corral
All law abiding gun owners follow the law now. Otherwise they wouldn't be law abiding.

I can sell a gun to a felon with a history of mental illness and drug addiction and break no law. FTF sale - I have no obligation to check anything.

Yes I am still considered to be a law abiding citizen.

But the majority of folks that are law abiding can do a simple thing - can I see your CHL (or GBC)? Many will do this even if no law requires it. Give the average Joe an easy way to make sure the guy they are selling the gun to a way to check - it would help.



You, nor anyone else has shown this to be problem now.

You trying to say that no criminal or crazy has ever purchased a gun in a FTF sale from an upstanding citizen that would not have sold the gun if they had know the buyer was a criminal or crazy?


So why argue for a new law, new restrictions, new costs, and more government intrusion IF you already know the law will not work to stop the people already disallowed from possessing a firearm to posses them?

It would help - no question about it - like I said it is like a condom.
As has been pointed out several times. You can require everyone you sale to to have a FFL background check and make the transfer there. That is your choice now. Forcing everyone else to handle transaction the way you want will do nothing to stop crime and reduce felons from getting weapons. You are concentrating on a small fraction of people unknowingly selling a legally owned weapon to a felon/mentally ill person. You are advocating for a larger more intrusive government and cannot show where it would have stopped one of the recent tragedies or prevented a prohibited person from buying a firearm in a face to face transaction. You then use the strawman argument that it cannot be showed to you it has never happened. That wasn't the argument and is only a deflection by you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
How about -

If you show me a CHL - I have a safe harbor against any prosecution or civil liability - if the gun I sell is later used in a "bad" way.

How about you do all your transaction via an FFL? Then you have no cause to worry. You seem to want a law to force you to do what you think is right, rather than voluntarily doing it yourself. I'm not arguing if its right or wrong. I'm just arguing you already have in place what you wish for for yourself.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:19   #104
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Why do we wait for "them" to propose anything?

We are always playing defence.

I don't care how good your team is - if you are always playing defence you will always lose in the end - you can never win.

I am using the CHL as an example - you would need another / additional method. I called it a GBC (gun buying card).

Not understanding the Brady law - if my CHL avoids a BGC or not is state law. Are you talking about state laws the Brady bunch has gotten passed?

Screw them - let them explain why I have to pass a BGC every time I buy a gun. I have already passed dozens of them - how does passing one more to buy my 21ST (whatever) gun provide any positive impact?

Make them come out and admit they want complete registration - prevent them from hiding behind the universal BGC / gun show loop hole spin BS.
Because they will never come out and admit that. It is giving them small incremental victories in restricting my rights and building a larger more intrusive government. Why would you want to give them more control when you know it won't stop crime?
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:02   #105
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
Because they will never come out and admit that. It is giving them small incremental victories in restricting my rights and building a larger more intrusive government. Why would you want to give them more control when you know it won't stop crime?
I don't -

I want them to have less control.

Requiring ME to pass one BGC every - say 3 years - and then not requiring another every time I buy a gun - allowing me to have guns shipped to my home with no FFL involvement - even from dealers out of state -

All expand my rights.

I have already agreed that this change will hurt some -

If you never purchase a gun from a FFL dealer - have never gotten a CHL - you would have the added burden of filling out a form (similar to a 4473) sending it in with $15 and waiting a month to get your GBC in the mail.

Then you can go buy all the guns you want in the next 3 years with no added paperwork.



Allowing the anti gun groups to keep us in a corner and chip away at our rights is not a great solution either.

I say go on offense.

Propose a new system that logically does some good - while expanding the rights of average law abiding Joe citizen.

If the anti gun types want to block it make them explain why?

Don't you want a check to prevent a crazy person from buying a gun using the "gun show loop hole"?

Why do you want to restrict a person that already passed a BGC from buying a second gun?

Put them on defense for a change.

Control the discussion and push back.

Last edited by Z71bill; 02-06-2013 at 11:05..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:17   #106
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
I don't -

I want them to have less control.

Requiring ME to pass one BGC every - say 3 years - and then not requiring another every time I buy a gun - allowing me to have guns shipped to my home with no FFL involvement - even from dealers out of state -

All expand my rights.
Do you honestly believe that is part of any current or pending legislation? By supporting UBC you ARE giving them more control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post

I have already agreed that this change will hurt some -

If you never purchase a gun from a FFL dealer - have never gotten a CHL - you would have the added burden of filling out a form (similar to a 4473) sending it in with $15 and waiting a month to get your GBC in the mail.

Then you can go buy all the guns you want in the next 3 years with no added paperwork.
Again, not part of any current or purposed legislation. This will not happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Allowing the anti gun groups to keep us in a corner and chip away at our rights is not a great solution either.

I say go on offense.

Propose a new system that logically does some good - while expanding the rights of average law abiding Joe citizen.

If the anti gun types want to block it make them explain why?

Don't you want a check to prevent a crazy person from buying a gun using the "gun show loop hole"?

Why do you want to restrict a person that already passed a BGC from buying a second gun?

Put them on defense for a change.

Control the discussion and push back.
How is that done by supporting a UBC?

ETA: What you allow one legislative body to grant, another can take away by passing another law and/or removing an existing law.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9

Last edited by whoflungdo; 02-06-2013 at 11:20..
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:18   #107
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,121


Never begin a negotiation with a concession. And never negotiate rights.
gwalchmai is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:19   #108
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Never begin a negotiation with a concession. And never negotiate rights.

Bingo!
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:04   #109
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Never begin a negotiation with a concession. And never negotiate rights.
Which is a big part of the problem in Washington.

All ideology - limited substance.

How else do you negotiate anything - say you want to buy a car?

So you say. I want that new car -

Sales guy says - great I would love to sell it to you for $29,000

You say. I don't want to give up anything - I just want the car.

You need to propose what you want - and what you will pay.

Or

Is it better to just sit and play defense?


Be against everything - even if it could help keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Part of the fight is appearance. If you try and engage in a reasonable way - with real solutions you can control public opinion. End up with a better overall system that actually does some good - at a lower cost.

When some anti gun person asks a pro gun member of congress.

Do you think we should require background checks on private sales so a criminally insane drug addict can not buy a gun at a gun show?

They say what.

I am against background checks that will keep guns way from crazy people.

Then we wonder why we get labeled as gun nuts.

If you never negotiate rights then

How will we ever get back any of the rights that has already been lost?

Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:10   #110
dbcooper
Senior Member
 
dbcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,138
You start with a demand, like an end to gun free zones, never start by giving anything.
__________________
A broad brush paints a lousy picture, lacking the nuance and details of life's realities. As a young man my paints were black and white, with age came a palette holding many shades of gray.
dbcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:15   #111
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
Do you honestly believe that is part of any current or pending legislation? By supporting UBC you ARE giving them more control.



Again, not part of any current or purposed legislation. This will not happen.




How is that done by supporting a UBC?

ETA: What you allow one legislative body to grant, another can take away by passing another law and/or removing an existing law.
You control the discussion by taking some action VS sitting on the sideline waiting for them to attack.

You control the discussion by gaining support with voters by offering real solutions to the problem.

BTW - I don't support UBC.

I am willing to accept them (without registration) as long as I get other stuff in return that is worth more to me.

No other stuff - no background checks --

Try this --

Which gun laws do you dislike the most? (besides the background check)

Give me your top 3

Would you trade these for requiring UBC?
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:24   #112
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbcooper View Post
You start with a demand, like an end to gun free zones, never start by giving anything.

Then what?

I say --

OK I am willing to eliminate gun free zones if you allow UBC.

Is this any different that saying.

I would consider changes to the BC system if we can get rid of these gun free zones.

---------------
I have a car for sale you want it.

How would you buy it from me using your make a demand system of negotiation?

Really - what is your opening statement.

I want your car!
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:26   #113
somebodybuymeaglock
Senior Member
 
somebodybuymeaglock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickC50310 View Post
This is spot on. The gov and or cops cant just snatch up your legally owned and carried firearm to run a trace just for fun.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
The gov can and does snatch private property for fun, why not guns?

Last edited by somebodybuymeaglock; 02-06-2013 at 12:29..
somebodybuymeaglock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:28   #114
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
You control the discussion by taking some action VS sitting on the sideline waiting for them to attack.

You control the discussion by gaining support with voters by offering real solutions to the problem.

BTW - I don't support UBC.

I am willing to accept them (without registration) as long as I get other stuff in return that is worth more to me.

No other stuff - no background checks --

Try this --

Which gun laws do you dislike the most? (besides the background check)

Give me your top 3

Would you trade these for requiring UBC?
You really have no idea how the anti's work do you? Nothing is being traded. They take. Giving up a right either in whole or in part is not a compromise. Name me one time "gun control" legislation has been passed where they "allowed" us to have our "rights" back. The government doesn't grant us rights. They only take them away via legislation.

Your analogy of the car purchase is another bad example you like to keep throwing out. The negotiation is I have money you have the car. I am willing to pay x for x and you negotiate from there. Both of you are free to make a deal or walk away with what you brought to the table. Please explain how that works with negotiating our rights away.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9

Last edited by whoflungdo; 02-06-2013 at 12:29..
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:39   #115
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
You really have no idea how the anti's work do you? Nothing is being traded. They take. Giving up a right either in whole or in part is not a compromise. Name me one time "gun control" legislation has been passed where they "allowed" us to have our "rights" back. The government doesn't grant us rights. They only take them away via legislation.

Your analogy of the car purchase is another bad example you like to keep throwing out. The negotiation is I have money you have the car. I am willing to pay x for x and you negotiate from there. Both of you are free to make a deal or walk away with what you brought to the table. Please explain how that works with negotiating our rights away.
You seem to think we can just be against everything and our rights will stay where they are now.

How has that been working for us - say over the last 25 years?

I want money (end of gun free zones, reduce restrictions of inter state transfer of guns, reduction in the number of background checks - one check is good for 3 years, elimination of FFL in online sales)

You want a car (universal back ground checks, gun registration, ban semi autos, limit mag capacity)

Same thing - negotiation is getting something and giving up something.

Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:43   #116
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
You seem to think we can just be against everything and our rights will stay where they are now.

How has that been working for us - say over the last 25 years?

I want money (end of gun free zones, reduce restrictions of inter state transfer of guns, reduction in the number of background checks - one check is good for 3 years, elimination of FFL in online sales)

You want a car (universal back ground checks, gun registration, ban semi autos, limit mag capacity)

Same thing - negotiation is getting something and giving up something.

Are you being obtuse? I have money and want a car. I can walk away with my money if I don't like the car, the price, or the salesman or for any other reason. How can I walk away with my gun free zones, reduction in background checks, etc if I don't like what the other side is offering? The analogy isn't even in the same zip code, let alone the same ball park.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:43   #117
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,121


Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
You seem to think we can just be against everything and our rights will stay where they are now.

How has that been working for us - say over the last 25 years? :
Our rights have been disappearing because we've been negotiating them away.
gwalchmai is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:43   #118
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Our rights have been disappearing because we've been negotiating them away.

Bingo! again...
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:01   #119
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
Are you being obtuse? I have money and want a car. I can walk away with my money if I don't like the car, the price, or the salesman or for any other reason. How can I walk away with my gun free zones, reduction in background checks, etc if I don't like what the other side is offering? The analogy isn't even in the same zip code, let alone the same ball park.
Its is exactly the same thing.


the anti members of congress have something the pro gun members want

the pro gun members have something the anti gun members want

Same as every law that gets passed - some things are given up to get other things.

By not taking the initiative in the past and trying to offer real solutions that would keep guns away from crazy people - and instead waiting until some nut shoots 20 1ST graders was a mistake.

If we offer real solutions and changes to existing laws (like I am offering) and the anti's say NO WAY we only want to reduce your rights and give up nothing in return.

FINE - the negotiation fails.

At least we come off like reasonable people willing to work on real solutions to real problems VS made to look like a bunch of nuts that resist keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.

It is the same thing with immigration and tax increases but that is a whole other thing.

Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:04   #120
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Its is exactly the same thing.


the anti members of congress have something the pro gun members want

the pro gun members have something the anti gun members want

Same as every law that gets passed - some things are given up to get other things.

By not taking the initiative in the past and trying to offer real solutions that would keep guns away from crazy people - and instead waiting until some nut shoots 20 1ST graders was a mistake.

If we offer real solutions and changes to existing laws (like I am offering) and the anti's say NO WAY we only want to reduce your rights and give up nothing in return.

FINE - the negotiation fails.

At least we come off like reasonable people willing to work on real solutions to real problems VS made to look like a bunch of nuts that resist keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.

It is the same thing with immigration and tax increases but that is a whole other thing.

Reasonable people do not offer something they know will not and has been proven not to work. That's what the definition of insanity is. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:17   #121
BRoberts243
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Let's say this ill-conceived affront to liberty passes. Let's say that you then don't ever buy or sell another gun. Then let's say that you get pulled over by a zealous representative of the state and you have your revolver on your seat, in compliance with your local ordinance. Let's further say you bought this gun in a perfectly legal face-to-face sale from a stranger in 2012, and have no paperwork to show that.

Who's to say that you didn't purchase that revo from "someone" this morning and didn't run a background check on it?
that's what will happen... then they'll say "hey we need registration in order to enforce this"

INCREMENTAL-ISM
BRoberts243 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:33   #122
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
Reasonable people do not offer something they know will not and has been proven not to work. That's what the definition of insanity is. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I happen to think background checks would help reduce criminals & mentally ill people access to guns.

Hard to not see that is would - unless you think no guns are ever purchased - in private sales - where one party is an upstanding citizen and the other is a criminal or crazy.

Will they eliminate 100% of the problem - or 50% or 25%?

NO - maybe 5% or 3%

But in some ways that is beside the point.

If the anti gun members of congress want UBC - and I can get something worth much more if I agree to it - then it would be worth trying to work something out.

Give in on the so called "gun show loop hole" but get something worth more in return.

How much damage does the constant spin about the gun show loop hole and allowing criminals and crazy people to buy guns at gun shows with no check HURT the pro gun position?

It gives the anti's something to say over and over and over that is so simple to understand and (in part at least) true - while making pro gun people who are against it look like nut jobs.

Same thing as "carried interest" - where hedge fund managers can treat the fees they earn for managing money into capital gains and pay 20% tax rates - while Joe Blow hard working employee pays ordinary income tax rates + payroll taxes on his income.

So it gives the liberals an issue they can harp on - year after year and build the case that the GOP only cares about millionaires and billionaires.

Hang on to the losing positions based on ideology and lose the whole election - that will be a better situation.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:42   #123
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
I happen to think background checks would help reduce criminals & mentally ill people access to guns.

Hard to not see that is would - unless you think no guns are ever purchased - in private sales - where one party is an upstanding citizen and the other is a criminal or crazy.

Will they eliminate 100% of the problem - or 50% or 25%?

NO - maybe 5% or 3%

But in some ways that is beside the point.

If the anti gun members of congress want UBC - and I can get something worth much more if I agree to it - then it would be worth trying to work something out.

Give in on the so called "gun show loop hole" but get something worth more in return.

How much damage does the constant spin about the gun show loop hole and allowing criminals and crazy people to buy guns at gun shows with no check HURT the pro gun position?

It gives the anti's something to say over and over and over that is so simple to understand and (in part at least) true - while making pro gun people who are against it look like nut jobs.

Same thing as "carried interest" - where hedge fund managers can treat the fees they earn for managing money into capital gains and pay 20% tax rates - while Joe Blow hard working employee pays ordinary income tax rates + payroll taxes on his income.

So it gives the liberals an issue they can harp on - year after year and build the case that the GOP only cares about millionaires and billionaires.

Hang on to the losing positions based on ideology and lose the whole election - that will be a better situation.
So you think the FOID cards which is what you are suggesting, have reduced crime in Illinois and kept the guns out of the hand of prohibited people? You are a Brady clone. You don't care about doing anything to reduce crime or prevent the wrong people from getting the firearms. You admit as much in with your 3%-5% statistic. Did you pull that number out of thin air or can you offer a cite for that? I think we both know the answer to that.

ETA:"Get something worth more" in return? What is worth your rights being taken away and you helping them being taken away?
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9

Last edited by whoflungdo; 02-06-2013 at 13:43..
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:42   #124
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRoberts243 View Post
that's what will happen... then they'll say "hey we need registration in order to enforce this"

INCREMENTAL-ISM
If this is correct then why is this not being demanded now?

If the person that has possession of a gun has a legal right to have a gun - leave them alone.

If they are a criminal then prosecute them

Same as now.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:48   #125
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
If this is correct then why is this not being demanded now?

If the person that has possession of a gun has a legal right to have a gun - leave them alone.

If they are a criminal then prosecute them

Same as now.
It is already. They just don't have enough votes to get it done..

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/ny...pons.html?_r=0

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/io...matic-weapons/

http://www.examiner.com/article/sen-...ply-of-weapons

How you can't see that you are assisting them is beyond me...
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:36.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 915
261 Members
654 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42