|
Post by PamIsMe on Oct 17, 2015 12:12:10 GMT -6
I am curious what exactly you think the Dems can do? Far as I can see the only thing being pushed for is background checks for any gun purchase and states being able to tap into the fed database as well. And, maybe a 3 day waiting period to pick up a gun. Are those really such bad things? No one has ever suggested taking away guns, which would be impossible anyway. Ammo control rumors that went around just lined the pockets of ammo and gun dealers and created a major shortage of ammo.
So what is really your biggest fear?
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 18, 2015 7:16:12 GMT -6
Pam, Hillary voted YES to hold gun manufacture liable for gun violence! That was a plain waste of time and money in congress! like saying going to hold McDonalds liable because you get fat off eating Big Macs every day LOL.
She also has stated she will re enact the assault weapons ban. That did nothing for crime what so ever and term AR does not mean assault rifle, it means Armalite Rifle corp! They are a semi automatic rifle like any other in forms and function. The idea that magazine limits damage is bunk, as it only takes a few seconds to change out a magazine.
When Bill took away such that was a niche market at the time, now millions of people own AR style rifles would be a much harder fight today than back in the 90's. yet she still made that comment.
A 3 day waiting period is just BS, as with the NICS system most of the time they can get the information and process it over th phone. if they have questions or concerns they will tell the gun salesmen to place a hold on the gun and by federal law you can't dispose of a firearm until the date given out by the NICS representative any how. So in effect we do have a 3-7 day waiting period for certain people.
The people have answered many of those questions by stocking up and buying guns like never before in our countries history, they do not want people limiting their ability to own firearms. Shooting sports has become much larger over the course of the last decade. No denying such.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 18, 2015 7:20:07 GMT -6
Hilliary quote from Philadelphia 2008: I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed--the Republicans will not reinstate it--are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 18, 2015 16:23:28 GMT -6
TC makes some good points. But the biggest threat to gun rights is the prospect of Hillary or some other anti-gun president making anti-gun judicial appointments who constrict the holding of the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment decisions.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Oct 18, 2015 22:07:06 GMT -6
Auto makers have been held accountable for accidents regarding defects and they did not sell the car, nor drive the car etc. There is culpability and that is one of the reasons for the high levels of fear and hate tactics by the gun rights groups. I believe their policies are not bad but their method of always denying liability is wearing thinner every incident we have. When those that hold the strong positions continue to move toward a frenzied and less sane methodology they endanger all of us that enjoy owner and using firearms. We always need to remember that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. As more and more gun manufacturers and companies are owned by in whole or partially by foreign firms our footing becomes less strong every time this happens. I find it interesting that many Conservatives hate everything about Western Europe yet have no problem with the companies impact on our firearms industry.
Bryce
|
|
TRay
Demoman...
Posts: 107
|
Post by TRay on Oct 19, 2015 17:10:11 GMT -6
Big difference between liability a automaker should face for a defective product and a non defective firearm. Don't understand how you could think a firearm manufacture should be held liable on a product that 99.999% is used perfectly legally. Be the same as holding the manufacture of a delivery van liable for someone using to house a car bomb. I agree with James, going to be some turnover in justices in next 8 years, that could be far more trouble for future gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Oct 19, 2015 21:24:14 GMT -6
I think you are thinking far, far too narrowly on this. The lady that sued McDonalds for millions for spilling coffee is an example of what all of us need to wary of including gun production factories etc. In ag we have had silo companies sued and lost for people falling because the put the doors in upside down so just about anything is possible. Also there will come a time when there may be unlimited financial resources available to press a lot of cases and or legislation. Stating that schools need to arm teachers is a poor defense for more reasonable gun control when there are hosts of other institutions full of people and they are not being asked to be armed nor are they. I can't see why expanding background checks is such a big issue in many ways it states that we are not concerned about the mental health of the person buying a firearm as long as we can sell more of them.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Oct 20, 2015 14:18:53 GMT -6
IMHO the assault rifle ban did make one big difference, it made the general public feel better, did not hurt any gun owners (who have now had a chance to stock up if they realty want to)no matter what the true definition of AR is. People are for expanded background checks and a waiting period, it also makes them feel better. How does that really hurt the average person wanting to buy a new gun? It doesn't. Even if the SCOTUS is all liberals they still must honor the constitution and the right to bear arms has been firmly established. Maybe the devil is in the details? In the court of public opinion -------------------- CBS News Poll. July 29-Aug. 2, 2015. N=1,252 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3. "In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" 7/29 - 8/2/15 More strict - Less strict - Kept as they are - Unsure/ No answer Overall 52 % 13% 32 % 2% Republicans 31 21 47 2 Democrats 77 4 18 1 Independents 48 16 33 3 2/19-23/14 54 9 36 1 Overall 12/4-8/13 Overall 49 12 36 3 5/31 - 6/4/13 Overall 51 11 36 2 Also an interesting fact check on Clinton's statement about gun manf. not having any liability www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior"Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy." Cheers, Pam
|
|
TRay
Demoman...
Posts: 107
|
Post by TRay on Oct 20, 2015 17:11:24 GMT -6
OK expand background checks, have a 3 day wait period, do whatever else you think needs be done. THEN WHAT?? What's the next idea, cause these senseless shootings will happen again, and when they do what's the next idea to restrict gun ownership farther. The only way this kind of stuff is not going to happen is outlaw guns entirely. I don't know the exact number but a large percentage of these shootings would not have been prevented with any of the measures being suggested. A background check isn't going to stop a kid from taking a gun from his dad's gun safe, or stealing one from a neighbor. A 3 day wait isn't going to stop a guy from commiting mass murder most of those crazy people spend months if not years planning the crap. The goal of many of these anti-gun people isn't to limit access to guns, but to ban them outright. Much like the anti-trapper groups. Hard for one side to compromise when they never get anything in return.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 20, 2015 18:51:06 GMT -6
Bryce what automaker has been sued successfully for their brand being used in a DUI case? Or what brand has been sued for a speeding ticket? reckless driving?
The dems wanted to ensure gun manufactures had the option of being sued because a lawful and fully operational firearm "might be" used in violent crimes for crying out loud. Not defective we have that this was about gun violence and making the firearm manufacture pay!!!!!, Pure stupidity to ever be brought up!
Pam no offense but that is the most illlogical answer I have heard yet for the backing of the AR ban in my life LOL.
make people feel better because they limited the lawful rights of gun owners to own a semi automatic firearm? How did feelings get involved in our 2 nd amendment rights?
It did nothing for crimes what so ever. Except make people want what they cannot have LOL. The AR craze when bonkers after the ban was lifted, lifted because it served no purpose what so ever, except for pay backs to the anti gun crowd for votes. Hard to defend such a ban when it serves no purpose except make people feel better LOL.
Millions of lawful gun owners didn't feel better they just waited until a pro gun president came in and said enough is enough. In this country we want what is best for everyone, except what is best isn't for everyone LOL.
Don't forget our country takes in a lot of money on firearms excise taxes each year! That benefits hunters and non hunters alike without such revenues many states would be in real trouble when it comes to their ability to provided for the general public.
I would say the last 10 years has been about as large as ever as far as excise taxes go with record gun and ammunition sales. This benefits every state and the people of those states. So the more licensed hunters ie gun owners who hunt the more your state gets of such taxation.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 20, 2015 18:59:40 GMT -6
Tray, they will never get it the left, they think hey know what is best for people in all states. A gun has never got up and shot anyone, it is the person and the weapon really doesn't matter gun,knife,airplane, pipe bomb, chemicals etc. The left thinks they can legislate safety to all Americans not possible.
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 21, 2015 3:00:46 GMT -6
"Hard for one side to compromise when they never get anything in return."
There is an excellent observation. In exchange for more extensive background checks for all gun sales, Congress should pass a law prohibiting any no-gun zones on public property in the US.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Oct 21, 2015 9:01:47 GMT -6
McDonald's the coffee maker got sued because the person spilt hot coffee and there was no this is hot warning on the cup. Sure there has not been those actions YET but I still think one looks at this far too narrowly. We are talking arenas where there can huge financial impacts for litigation and manufacturing and I doubt capitalists will want to miss out on those opportunities.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 21, 2015 20:06:01 GMT -6
While I find the coffee issue at McDonalds silly at best it was judged by a jury and not judged by our govt! The gun issue is from the left Liberials who wanted to enact legislation to make gun manufactures liabial for gun violence big,big,big difference for sure!
A closer analogy would be if someone bought a cup of coffee from McDonalds and then poured it on someone and they sue McDonalds for selling hot coffee and won! Now then we would know our country would be nothing but he'll in a hand basket on that one!
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Oct 22, 2015 20:50:34 GMT -6
So you are saying our court system is not part of our government. I now better understand the stances you take and the rationale behind those. Anything is better than government in your eyes even if it part of our legal system the government put into place!! Okay that will take some time to ponder.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 23, 2015 5:12:45 GMT -6
No what I a, saying they took it to a jury trail and the jury found fault with McDonalds that is the roll of the dice, while I do not agree or would have awarded the lady anything as I still feel common sense is needed in this country by all.
What Hillairy and the left wanted to do is open up more lawsuits against gun manufacturers to see they would stand trial for acts of gun violence with the products they sold!
Her and other leftist where trying to repeal the act in which George Bush signed in 2005 that states no civil lawsuits against gun manufactures because someone committed a crime of violence with a lawful product. It still allows the victims to sue the person doing the act if violence just not the gun company for making guns, again common sense or otherwise we need to be able to sue Ford,Chevy,Dodge and all other auto makers when someone is charged with a DUI, Wreckinless driving resulting in injury or death etc.
Again common sense much is lacking in this country and ha been for awhile now.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 23, 2015 5:15:43 GMT -6
Be like me walking into cabelas to the knife counter and asking to look at knives and cut myself and wanting to sue either Cabelas or Buck because they made the knife to sharp and never told me knives where sharp LOL.
I could take it to a jury which I would not, but I would not honestly feel I would end up with much for pain and suffering because I envoked such on myself. Adults need to act like adults.................
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Oct 23, 2015 6:18:20 GMT -6
what everyone seems to over look with all the tea spilling around, is that the COMMON SENSE ideas that are being run into the ground by some as anti gun, are proposals that were WRITTEN INTO LAW by the NRA when tey actually stood for gun owners- now, since the NRA is a political arm of the GOP- the NRA had laws written (by them btw) and passed that make enforcing THEIR original laws impossible.
look it up- and now tell me WHY this occurred
|
|
TRay
Demoman...
Posts: 107
|
Post by TRay on Oct 23, 2015 17:16:08 GMT -6
You will have to be more specific on what laws your talking about, can't discuss if I have no idea exactly what your talking about. NRA a wing of GOP, well ya it follows what its 4 million members want and those people are generally rebublican. People seem to think the NRA is a radical group when it exists because of the support of a bunch of gun owners.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Oct 24, 2015 7:14:26 GMT -6
|
|