|
Post by James on Dec 1, 2015 7:06:05 GMT -6
I assume his comment would also apply to stadia in the US.
In any event, didn't it happen in a theatre (not stadium) in France?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 1, 2015 7:40:29 GMT -6
TC- get the cotton out of your ears and understand- THE REPS LAUNCHED THE MOST SERIOUS ASSUALT ON THE 2ND EVER MADE!!!!!!!
and you pass it off like cold snot on a toothpick
YOU make this political
YOU keep honest conversations from starting
I'l lbet a dollar to a doughnut, I carry a gun far, far more than 99% of the conservative reps crying aopbut dems and guns. and there are a lot, lot more like me out there-
yet- people like you and your constant, CONSTANT try to make this guns owners vs all dems is a big part of the problem.
you talk about all your experience in solving issues compromise, etc- sorry- I don't see it at all, in fact, I see the opposite of good compromise practices
your views, are very similar to those that set 220s unrestricted on public land- cause its there "right"- and no way sensible compromises can be had- resulting in all loosing the privledge
pam- TC loves to introduce red herrings, to distract from the issue
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 1, 2015 14:50:47 GMT -6
In WI it is illegal to even be hunting or carrying a firearm while intoxicated. I sure would not want to be setting in an NFL stadium during the 2nd half with 30-40K persons packing while consuming alcohol and getting drunk. Maybe we should do that it would sure put the kibosh on all those lengthy tail gate parties.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 1, 2015 17:37:00 GMT -6
I can just imagine how long it would take for Green Bay fans to start shooting their guns in the air when the Packers made a touchdown lol Or at a referee when he made a call they didn't like.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 2, 2015 20:20:37 GMT -6
Tman it is no red herring and you keep believing that the right is the enemy of gun ownership if you want to.
The voting record on every gun issue brought up is there for ALL to see plain and simple see who votes for what. See what side enacts more laws on legal gun owners and who has stripped away some of those silly laws. See what states have the most restrictive gun laws In our nation and look at the state and federal level voting record of the majority in those states.
No Redding hearing at all fact. the left has tied to the people who want to see far more restrictions placed on legal gun owners in an effort to try and curb illegal activity with firearms, it will not happen period, so the laws and talk of more restrictive gun laws are their to pander to a base of voters period. Nothing more or less.
Look at states like Illionois, California and all their messed up laws pertaining to firearms and ammunition and tell me any of these rules and regs passed has done anything for the cause of curbing illegal use of firearms good grief.
|
|
RShaw
Demoman...
Posts: 147
|
Post by RShaw on Dec 2, 2015 21:47:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 3, 2015 16:17:53 GMT -6
what you can't seem to get through your head- is that BOTH will turn their backs on a dime
but you drink the koolaid, and ignore the reality
now you sound like the NRA-
look...... look- we have all these laws
oh yeah- we wrote legislation that prevents their enforcement
Brady bill ring any bells?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 4, 2015 6:21:57 GMT -6
Brady bill was brought to a vote by chuck schumer democrat from NY and singed into law by democratic president Bill Clinton. The reason it passed was because of th concession that the 5 day waiting period would be done away with once the NICS instant check was up and running in 1998. It would have had a much tougher time passing both houses without that give by the democrats and they knew it hence the passage of the Brady Bill. The NRA helped make sure we have the NICS instant check in place today!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 4, 2015 7:18:59 GMT -6
the reason in passed was it was a concensous
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 5, 2015 6:48:17 GMT -6
The consensus was only reached with the added stipulation of instant background ground checks by 1998. Without that verbiage no passing of something that was written and brought up many years sooner.
Again schumer and Clinton made this happen was not done under a republican president. Yet was a decent law but only with the instant background check involved not a 5 day waiting period.
I think most people would tell you the same, yet if passed with the mandatory 5 day wait people would be very,very unhappy to say the least the way they wanted to enact the Brady bill in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 5, 2015 8:15:53 GMT -6
most people, give opinions without doing any research, or having any facts- or worse, ignore the facts and still give opinions
yes, it would be hard to please the "I need a gun and I need it NOW" crowd
well, keep baracading against the "democrats"- it might work out for you- but probably not-
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 5, 2015 19:48:17 GMT -6
Tman what am I missing? The NRA was instrumental in getting the NICS instant check as part of the deal, this also went to the Supreme Court and they found this act illegal to be done by the govt and is done by the stores with the aid of the NICS system by the FBI.
You are telling me if we had a no deal with the instant check today we would be sitting with a mandatory 5 day waiting period?
Just silly to think so nothing more.
On bald Friday we had 185,000 checks so those people all come back into the stores 5 days later to pick up their guns with the added crowd of more people in line waiting to start the 5 day process and that would be a smooth running operation for any store? Not to mention it would not move the gun crime on the needle one bit, just make more hassle and cost for people and the stores selling guns. Not something the right or the NRA would be willing to agree to.
Again would do nothing but add burden to those legal gun owners.
I was at Cabela's today the gun counter was once again very busy with lots of transactions taking place and all those people paying their excise taxes on every gun and ammuntion purchase a win win for our country is it not?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 6, 2015 7:07:50 GMT -6
what you are missing, is that you stand with 1 eye closed and blame everything on the democrats, forgetting anything the reps have done- that's not only silly, its dangerous! some of your points just blow my mind- we can't have checks, because it causes more work for the store? Good God man when we do get more and more restrictive gun laws- don't look at the democrats- look in the mirror!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 6, 2015 7:29:28 GMT -6
No not one eye closed at all, I find faults in both sides but the overwhelming evidence is their on many issues and how each side votes for such. Rhetoric is just that, votes are another matter and votes is what turns bills into law. Checks are becoming a thing of the past and many stores simply will not take them anymore. Wal marts and he such spend millions on new equipment to get instant verification on money in th account or not, so when you add up the new technology cost to save lost revenue then I can see why many places do not accept checks anymore. Those cost are not absorbed by the business they are passed onto you and I. We shall see who brings up on the floor the next gun bill ok? Oh wait look what just happened on Thursday! the Senate on Thursday voted down two gun control proposals put forward by Democrats in response to this week’s deadly shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., in a series of votes that highlighted the intractable party divide over how to respond to gun violence. The Senate rejected a measure from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows on a 48 to 50 vote and an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote. The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate and they needed 60 votes to be adopted. Feinstein’s amendment was identical to legislation she previously filed on the same topic, while the expansion of background checks for gun purchases mirrored language championed by Sens. Manchin and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in 2013, following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School three years ago this month. Manchin argued his amendment has bipartisan support and is a common sense response to gun violence. “It’s for law-abiding gun owners and it’s a good piece of legislation and it’s most reasonable and it’s been accepted by people around the gun community,” he said. “We have an opportunity to do it now with the height of everything happening,” Manchin said. “For us not to do anything, just sit here and be mum would be just as bad.” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for president as a Democrat, also came out strongly for the language. “We need to significantly expand and improve background checks,” he said. “We need to renew the assault weapons ban. We need to end the sale of high capacity magazines. We need to make gun trafficking a federal crime and give law enforcement the tools they need to get illegal guns off of the streets. We need to close the gun show loophole as well as loopholes that allow gun purchasers to buy a gun after the waiting period expires without a completed background check. So tell me again how the new guns laws are comming from the right and I need and other gun owners need to look in the mirror? Bernie really shows is lack of knowledge on thesubject of gun laws Good greif. Bernie needs to read this www.atf.gov/file/11881/download there are gun trafficking laws on the books Bernie and no not every person is in need of an FFL. Who is going to go into every citizens house and check paper work? Good grief the ATF would have to have another 5,000 plus people on the payroll. He is back to the AR ban and magazine ban which proved to do not thing for gun violence in the country! Bernie needs to understand the 2nd amendment fully, if the store making the sale and the NICS has not found further information to deny the sale of the firearm after the prescribed waiting period given out by NICS, then they are breaking the law and inpeading on the 2nd amendment rights of that person. The federal govt by which the Supreme Court has spoken on could be sued and likely very likely loose such a case, without the information nessacary to deny a firearm purchase the transfer of the firearm must go through! Come On Bernie your playing to a base you want votes from seeing how you are an independent running on the democratic side. At least do your research first. This guy is scary really on the issue of the 2nd amendment and then some wonder why gun sales are thru the roof? Wow.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 6, 2015 7:37:51 GMT -6
Rhetoric is just that
yes, it is......................
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 6, 2015 7:55:59 GMT -6
Bernie worried about the shipping of firearms again good grief. Unless classified as a antique gun which their are rules for such classification, then the UPS will not ship a gun with out it going to a holder of an FFL and at which time he cannot transfer the gun to anyone without a 4473 done.
So where does all of this shipping of guns without background checks come from Bernie? If someone does not declare it a firearm they will get in trouble.
Again Bernie read the laws all,ready on the books please!
carrier? A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by carrier to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 178.31, 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30] (B8) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U. S. Postal Service? A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. A nonlicensee may not transfer any firearm to a nonlicensed resident of another state. The Postal Service recommends that longguns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 6, 2015 9:38:49 GMT -6
what tangent are you off on now?
hard to follow your...well, was going to say logic...but that's out the door.
|
|
TRay
Demoman...
Posts: 107
|
Post by TRay on Dec 6, 2015 12:07:02 GMT -6
The NRA and several other shooting and outdoor groups put out scores on every candidate based on their history of voting on gun-right issues. The ratings are very easy to look up and for the most part are along party lines. Over the years the NRA has helped finance candidates from both parties based on their voting records on 2nd amendment rights, generally NRA sponsored democratic candidates have been from western states where they have no possible way of their voters electing them if they vote against the 2nd amendment. At the democratic national convention every year they have several speakers from the national anti-gun groups who are well received and receive some of the loudest ovations of the convention. I have never seen any of these groups invited to a republican convention.
Regardless of what our political affiliation is we are all losing our 2nd amendment rights as time goes on and most likely will have lost more by the end of the day today.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 6, 2015 20:18:24 GMT -6
Tray many people know who is anti gun and who is pro gun and what party overall is what. Some choose not to believe such even though the evidence is all over the place showing voting records, public comments and where each side spend the majority of their money.
Was at Cabela's again today and thanks to Bernie's remarks on the AR ban and magazine limits he would like to impose as president, the run on AR rifles was off the hook! 100 percent fact! They have been sitting ideal for a period of time, now a major run on AR's once again! They have 6 models and many where getting close to being sold out! Along with all those .223's will come a major ammunition surge and more excise and sales tax for the states and federal govt! Companies like DPMS, S&W and others are laughing all the way to the bank to support more people who are pr gun come election time!
At least they are propping up one end of the economy, make no mistake the firearms industry is alive and super well. Thanks Bernie, but remember the majority in the highest degree will not be voting for you come Election Day!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 6, 2015 20:24:06 GMT -6
My tangent is this Tman, Bernie and others where concerned with the shipping of firearms, but again that is already highly regulated by the ATF. Worried about Internet sales, I have purchased firearms online and they get shipped to a FFL dealer who then charges the person a fee to do the transaction and a background check has to be a part of that process in most cases.
|
|