I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[photoman]

So Joe and Art what you're saying is that because I recently joined this particular forum I shouldn't exercise my first amendment rights?

No. You should have to have a background check first.

 

[sambuh]

Felons (criminals) DO NOT buy guns legally. Please stop saying that as it is 100% FALSE.

It is against the law for a felon to purchase a gun (unless they have successfully petitioned for their rights; I don't think you are referring to those).

There is no way, under current law for a felon (criminal) to obtain a gun legally.

I'll connect the dots for you...

A criminal can go to a private gun owner, and purchase a gun from him "legally"

That is to say that in most situations where criminals are using guns in crimes have used a legally way to purchase that gun. Not through a licensed dealer where a background check is required. But through a perfectly legal channel. You are right it's technically not legal... Thus the problem. Thank you for understanding and helping explain that point.

 

[sambuh]

No. You should have to have a background check first.

Lol... Good one

 

[photoman]

I can think of one. The NRA came out and said more police in school!!

Obama said, ok. If you want that, my first executive order is to give you federal assistance in doing that

Wrong! He said "resource officers" (whatever that means). You'll notice he didn't say anything about "armed police officers" and there in lies the lie.

 

[cp1969]

Hahaha wow.

I'm beginning to see the problem here... As soon as you label a problem left or right you can forget solving it. The left could say the sky is blue and the right would absolutely lose their mind. and then those of us left in the middle are stuck scratching our heads.

Alright well I tried. To the OP you're not alone. I believe sensible action can be had. And should be... As does the MANY others. I'm going to stop trying to understand and go back to posting about how I enjoy shooting. Good talk guys... Well most of you anyways.

So you claim to be pro-gun and LIKE that website you posted? I suggest you go back up a few posts and read the statement by, I believe it was Samuel Adams, and heed the advice it offers. Just get on the sidelines. By acquiescing to, or worse, promoting additional "sensible" or "reasonable" (buzz words) gun restrictions, you are in effect working for the other side. Why do liberals always think they've got to "solve a problem?"

Don't worry; we'll fight for your right to own guns, too. But we don't need and can't afford to have help from people whose reference websites are created and run by mad-dog anti-gunners.

 

[sambuh]

Wrong! He said "resource officers" (whatever that means). You'll notice he didn't say anything about "armed police officers" and there in lies the lie.

Again no...

Give "schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers."

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/weige...osed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html

 

[photoman]

Again no...

Give "schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers."

Read President Obama's New, Proposed Executive Orders and Legislation on Guns

You are assuming that when he says "school resource officer" he is referring to an armed police officer.

 

[cmort666]

Give "schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers."

And exactly WHAT restriction on gun owners does that remove?

 

[sambuh]

You are assuming that when he says "school resource officer" he is referring to an armed police officer.

Lol *** are you talking about!? Read the order. Stop assuming

Alright im punching out of this one... Some of this was great. Some of it was laughable. But most of it was good.

 

[cp1969]

Here's a couple of excellent example of the fine, "sensible" viewpoints on sambuh's reference website, GunVictimsAction.Org:
The biggest gun monster of all, Wayne LaPierre « Gun Victims Action Council
Gun Fact # 6: The Alzheimer Mind of the Gun Owner « Gun Victims Action Council

 

[Biginge]

Hope old Sanyo goes the way of that knife sharpenin fella.

 

[cmort666]

And just because you actually choose to scream louder and more obtrusively, doesn't actually mean you are right.

"Scream louder"?

There's no "screaming" going on. If there were, you might actually have a ghost of a chance of dealing somewhat effectively with that, since that's the default mode of anti-gunners. What's really going on is identification, confrontation, refutation and an absolute refusal to be hoodwinked and bamboozled into disarming OURSELVES.

The one element that's absolutely CRUCIAL to anti-gunners' plans is an effective disinformation campaign aimed at gun owners. You've got a plan alright... a trite, repetitious and ultimately futile one, steeped in contempt for your audience.

How's that working out for you?

 

[Big Fred]

I've read all the posts and was starting to wade into this mess, but erased all I had written. Sometimes you just can't fix stupid no matter how hard you try. I'll just say: NO NEW REGULATIONS. NONE. We need to work to get rid of some of the ones we have now.

 

[cmort666]

I've read all the posts and was starting to wade into this mess, but erased all I had written. Sometimes you just can't fix stupid no matter how hard you try. I'll just say: NO NEW REGULATIONS. NONE. We need to work to get rid of some of the ones we have now.

The attitude of anti-gunners is remarkably like that of Japanese militarists in 1941. They just KNOW they're smarter and tougher than we are, and that when shoved, we'll just collapse and grovel at their feet.

When that DOESN'T happen, they like the Japanese, react with infantile rage. Hence the tone deaf and vapid rants of those like Piers Morgan, so reminiscent of some hysterical tirade in a Japanese propaganda broadcast.

I'm not religious, but if I were, I'd pray with all of my might that they stick to the same course. Since 1984, I've never seen anti-gunners masquerading as gun owners do anything more than create an implacable resentment and resolve in their intended audience.

You'd think they'd learn. Thank goodness they never do.

 

[sambuh]

"Scream louder"?

There's no "screaming" going on. If there were, you might actually have a ghost of a chance of dealing somewhat effectively with that, since that's the default mode of anti-gunners. What's really going on is identification, confrontation, refutation and an absolute refusal to be hoodwinked and bamboozled into disarming OURSELVES.

The one element that's absolutely CRUCIAL to anti-gunners' plans is an effective disinformation campaign aimed at gun owners. You've got a plan alright... a trite, repetitious and ultimately futile one, steeped in contempt for your audience.

How's that working out for you?

Lol ok... Well have a good Saturday brother. I am actually going to pick up a beautiful model 66 and shoot it at the range. Everybody enjoy your weekend!

 

[sambuh]

I've never seen anti-gunners masquerading as gun owners...

hahahahaha double woooooooow.

 

[cmort666]

Lol ok... Well have a good Saturday brother. I am actually going to pick up a beautiful model 66 and shoot it at the range. Everybody enjoy your weekend!

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite an example of anti-gunners GIVING UP an EXISTING anti-gun measure.

And don't insult our intelligence with the AWB sunset, since that was AUTOMATIC, and EVERY anti-gunner was AGAINST the sunset.

 

[cmort666]

hahahahaha double woooooooow.

Did you miss something? Here's what I ACTUALLY said:

"Since 1984, I've never seen anti-gunners masquerading as gun owners do anything more than create an implacable resentment and resolve in their intended audience."

It would seem that's a truth too traumatic for some to even contemplate...

 

[sambuh]

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite an example of anti-gunners GIVING UP an EXISTING anti-gun measure.

And don't insult our intelligence with the AWB sunset, since that was AUTOMATIC, and EVERY anti-gunner was AGAINST the sunset.

I don't know man. I told you earlier, I don't have all the answers. What I did say was I see a problem. A problem actually that has little to do with ARs and assault weapon bans. I, as an advocate of the 2nd amendment am against a degree of a "weapons ban"

What I am for, and it has little to do with school shootings, is a sensible idea (whatever that may be) to close loopholes that allow, and the evidence is there, guns in the hands of criminals. And I don't mean thugs stealing guns.

Data exists from all over that show criminals do in fact have the ability to purchase guns. In your eyes, my admittance of that being a problem and me saying something should be done(what I'm not sure a stringent background check process is an idea.) to you means I'm an anti gun liberal. Forget the fact that I'm a member of the NRA, own a multitude of weapons, conceal carry every day, bought my wife a gun and am looking for a 22 for my son. Forget all of that!

I've said a million times today, I'm not looking for an all out assault on gun owners. I'm looking for something to prevent criminals from getting guns. And maybe just maybe a background check is it. Because last I checked we have that here in VA, and I have Zero issue exercising my 2nd amendment right.

 

[venomballistics]

the way I see it, if restrictions are needed based on common sense, it is we, the gun owners who should be the ones calling the shots not the antis.
This is a fight.
like any fight, if you are not the one calling the shots, you are losing.
it matters not if you agree with them on a point. fight it anyhow. You never want your adversary to gain momentum.
After they have given up, THEN ponder the points of agreement and not a minute before.
Its all about momentum .. lets keep it now that weve earned it