op-ed in Az
- Thread starter ladder13
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The Arizona "RED" Star newspaper will print this stuff.
Without the House of Representatives and with an election cycle upon us, he is just playing to his base, about 26% who believe gun control means no firearms for anyone.
The "RED" Star paper is also called the Daily Star, but those of us in Arizona, many of us, prefer "RED" star.
Without the House of Representatives and with an election cycle upon us, he is just playing to his base, about 26% who believe gun control means no firearms for anyone.
The "RED" Star paper is also called the Daily Star, but those of us in Arizona, many of us, prefer "RED" star.
DeadManWalking
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 0
"• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it."
What I read of this is more government, more laws and more restrictions on Our Rights!
Here in Washington, if you are a Concealed Carry Permit holder, the background check takes about 3 minutes. Faster? Not sure how?
Reward states . . . ? Oh you mean a bribe to snitch on their citizens?
Lastly, if a criminal wants a firearm, the criminal is going to get a firearm either by stealing it from a legal citizen or purchasing it off the black market from other criminals.
We don't need any more restrictions placed on our Rights.
• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it."
What I read of this is more government, more laws and more restrictions on Our Rights!
Here in Washington, if you are a Concealed Carry Permit holder, the background check takes about 3 minutes. Faster? Not sure how?
Reward states . . . ? Oh you mean a bribe to snitch on their citizens?
Lastly, if a criminal wants a firearm, the criminal is going to get a firearm either by stealing it from a legal citizen or purchasing it off the black market from other criminals.
We don't need any more restrictions placed on our Rights.
"Reward States" = "Attention State Bureaucrats: The more people you list as prohibited possessors (even if incorrectly) the more federal funds you will receive." Kinda like the eight year old kids on the "no fly list."
Good recruitment for NRA and another boost for the gun and ammo business. NRA should get several hundred thousand new members as a result of this.
If you aren't a member, sign up!
If you aren't a member, sign up!
jlrhiner
US Veteran
When did he make that speech?
I don't believe this was a speech. It is an op/ed piece he supposedly wrote for an Arizona newspaper. I am sure a staffer actually wrote it for his signature, which is common practice.
How could any "reasonable" person disagree with the "reasonable-ness" of his proposals.
I file this under the "Camel's Nose Under the Tent" category.
The trouble is, there are plenty of "reasonable" non-gun people who will read it, and ask themselves, "How could gun-owners not be in favor of such reasonable measures?"
Hoplophile
Member
Huff-po
And an article in teh Huffington Post carries the thought further. The Obama White House has supposedly been in consultation with BOTH sides of the debate (let's see, that's Sarah Brady AND Josh Sugarmann, right?) and will likely push Schumer's latest: S. 436. 436 starts with imnproving mental health reporting into NICS, then adds... ALL firearm transfers must be subject to a background check, either through an FFL or through local law enforcement. That means record-keeping -- what this bill is all about. De facto gun registration. As an added bonus, the FFL or LEOs get to charge you $15 to check your background.
And an article in teh Huffington Post carries the thought further. The Obama White House has supposedly been in consultation with BOTH sides of the debate (let's see, that's Sarah Brady AND Josh Sugarmann, right?) and will likely push Schumer's latest: S. 436. 436 starts with imnproving mental health reporting into NICS, then adds... ALL firearm transfers must be subject to a background check, either through an FFL or through local law enforcement. That means record-keeping -- what this bill is all about. De facto gun registration. As an added bonus, the FFL or LEOs get to charge you $15 to check your background.
Really too bad the Feds don't spend more time figuring out how they lost control of AR-15's to Mexican drug cartels in the BATF's failed "sting" operation.
Similar threads
