|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 22, 2016 18:41:49 GMT -6
Tman why should they really? This is nothing more than to add cost to gun manufactures, with silly lawsuits, they make a legal product and what people Do with such is far beyond their control, otherwise the day we can sue with a high rate of cases won lets sue all fast food for making us fat, let us sue the paint companies for anyone's kids who huff paint and kill brain cells, lets sue anhydrous ammonia makers for making meth and ruinning our kids lives, lets sue any product that can have a negative side effect. Let us sue the beer and wine and hard liquor makers for all drunk drivers, let us sue,sue,sue. Good grief.
You can sue a gun maker of a negligent product can and has been done, but to allow law suits because some nut job bought a Remington shotgun or rifle and killed 1-7 people ? Get real please. You make the argument to protect your political ideals. That gun is made by Remington, goes to one of 100's of dealers at will, sells to someone who passes a background check, and 4 years later he or she blows a chip and kills people and you want Remington to be held liable? That is outlandish at the very least. They do not want to hold the dealers liable because they know where the real money is, and no one wins but a bunch of lawyers.
Remington makes a legal product and cannot control what people do with such neither can Budweiser, kraylon paints, McDonald's,Wendy's,Sonic etc. people like Hilliary and Bernie and other on the left are so far out of touch on reality when they talk about voting for such or bringing up a bill on such.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 23, 2016 8:13:26 GMT -6
the biggest thing to add costs, has been the fairy tale perpetuated that "they" are going to take all our guns.
McDonalds got sued for millions- over hot coffee
I'm not making ANY argument, beyond that "they will take our guns" is just a myth or rather a self serving fabrication, and that the majority of Americans, oppose what you believe.
none of the companies, you mention, have LAWS to prevent them being sued-why is that? guns were made by God, therefore they follow God's Law, and not ours?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 23, 2016 18:10:59 GMT -6
Tman other companies do not need such, you can sue anyone for any reason, you could try and sue a gun manufacture because of the product, just like I could try and sue McDonalds for making me fat, or kraylon because I huffed paint and killed brain cells, etc,etc. you will not win period and you should not wn, a product defect etc is one thing suing for negligence because you misused a product? Just silly............ It would open up a can of worms for all products then and their would be presidence for such.
The left like Hilliary is anti gun and voted for things that would have a negative effect on gun makers period. We have laws because Liberial judges would try to stretch the limits of reality. In fact the gun market is the best thing going under Obama no job sector has had the growth that gun sales and manufacture has had, brining in millions and millions In taxation.
No they will not take our guns, they cannot because of the 2nd amendment, what the left looks for is loop holes to slowly start to wither away some rights under the 2nd amendment and keeps their anti gun voting base somewhat happy. Like the talk of an AR ban and magazine ban.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 24, 2016 20:50:13 GMT -6
Yesterday, February 23, the South Dakota House of Representatives passed House Bill 1190 by a 66-1 vote. Please contact your state Representative and thank him or her if they supported HB 1190. Sponsored by state Representative G. Mark Mickelson (R-13) and state Senator Arthur Rusch (R-17), HB 1190 would create a Gold Card concealed pistol permit, as well as upgrade South Dakota’s existing Enhanced permit. Although proper ATF approval is still needed, those who are approved for a Gold Card permit will meet the minimum ATF requirements for NICS background check exemption when purchasing a firearm.
The Gold Card permit will help streamline the process of purchasing a firearm, and will reduce hassle for law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Also, with the passage of HB 1190 and after proper ATF approval, holders of the Enhanced South Dakota concealed pistol permit will also meet the minimum ATF requirements for NICS background check exemption, similar to the proposed Gold Card permit.
HB 1190 now moves to the Senate where it will await a committee referral for further consideration. Please contact your state Senator and urge him or her to support HB 1190 when it comes up for a vote. You can contact your Senator by clicking here or the above button.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 24, 2016 20:51:27 GMT -6
66-1 vote that is a major win brought to you the citizens of South Dakota!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 1, 2016 8:40:37 GMT -6
66-1 vote for background checks!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 7, 2016 7:29:47 GMT -6
Actually a win against the 3 day waiting period Tman and with this gold card sales will be lighting fast! Go in pick out your firearm of choice and no phone in needed, flash the gold card and pay and out the door! Far better than 3 day wait or calling it in each time.
Yes background check pre approved just like a loan LOL. Background checks are great provided they can be done in a timely manner. If the Feds want to do a gold card on everyone great, then we can have background checks everywhere flash the card and go private sales and public sales.
Makes sales of all firearms lighting quick. No forms just a copy of the gold card or enhanced pistol permit. Pay and go! The money saved by having far less NICS operators can go to the states to issue the gold cards and enhanced pistol permits at a reduced rate.
Oh wait I forgot something, any left state or left member of congress would never pass such nation wide, darn the luck................
I mean can you imagine states like Illinois and California passing such to protect their 2nd amendment rights? No either can I, Illinois a state where you need a card to buy ammunition. Illinois a state where you cannot walk out with a pistol because you have a 72 hr wait, or a shotgun because you have to wait 24 hrs after the sale. Yet crime is as high as ever in the state. Or Maryland that has no state constitutional,provision for the 2nd amendment. Or Hawaii where the gold card would do you no good as you cannot get a firearm with the chief of police issuing you a permit prior to sale, gifting or inheritance of firearms. Massachusetts would never work either because In Massachusetts, a complex procedure is set out for the purchase of rifles, shotguns, handguns, their related feeding devices, ammunition, large capacity firearms and large capacity feeding devices. Care must be taken to have the correct card or license for a particular purchase.
Sure glad we have states like SD protection our 2nd amendment rights. 66-1
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 9, 2016 21:06:25 GMT -6
This bill passed the senate with no problem what so ever on to the governors desk and a talk with the Feds. Glad to see a great pro gun rights state like SD moving things along for the legal gun owners, hope more states follow suit.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2016 15:03:31 GMT -6
what exactly is your argument- you state things like its a chip on your shoulder- daring someone to knock it off-
if you are trying to prove which party has tried to do more harm to the 2nd- that's a no brainer with what the Bush justice team tried to do- and I'm going to scream here so pay attention-
THEY TRIED TO GET THE 2ND AMENDMENT DEFINED AS APPLYING TO MILITIAS ONLY thank God the President of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Reagan was defeated in this!
the republicans were the only political party in 230 years, to try to ELIMINATE private gun ownership UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
put that in your pipe and smoke it!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 10, 2016 16:27:43 GMT -6
Sorry but you made the statement that the democrats are more gun friendly than the republicans that is not the case nor been the case for many,many years. The voting records of all gun legislation is there for all to see for many,many years.
Nothing more or less. Just the facts. a democrat put a ban on AR's and magazines a republican took away such a ban. More democrats get a lower grade on being pro gun than republicans. Those who talk about gun control are a majority of democrats or their voting base.
I am glad Justice Sclaia wrote what he did on the issue and put some finality on the issue and strong republican states like South Dakota enact good legislation for those legal citizens to enjoy their passion for guns.
Again Hillary said and I quote, "We talk about corporate greed, the gun manufacturers sell guns to make as much money as they can."
She further said the other night , Clinton said she supports holding gun manufacturers accountable when crimes are committed with their products. Sanders said he did not support going after gun manufacturers when an individual legally purchased the gun.
Bernie sanders then clarified her crazy views again, " If I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong, if you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and three days later you go out and start killing people, is the point to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that is the point, I disagree," Sanders said. "If they are selling a product and the person who buys it legally, what you are talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don't agree with that."
Even Berinie sees her view as just plain nuts. She has zero chance at such, that would open up many companies who sell product A for a use and then if used in a criminal act as being open and liable for a lawsuit. Yes the democrats as a whole are more gun friendly sorry not the FACTS. Even Bernie saw the writing on the wall on her comment.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 10, 2016 21:17:48 GMT -6
All this talk of how guns kill people is BS we have over 300 million guns and you divide that by the gun murders in the USA you get a percent of .00004170
More people die of many other means with a much higher percentage every year in our country. Mass shootings make up les than 2 percent of gun deaths each year, suicide rates are much higher, the mere fact that gun control legislation has little to zero impact on such should tell us ALL this is nothing more than pandering to a base and restricting the freedom of the people .
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 11, 2016 7:29:36 GMT -6
if you are trying to prove which party has tried to do more harm to the 2nd- that's a no brainer with what the Bush justice team tried to do- and I'm going to scream here so pay attention-
THEY TRIED TO GET THE 2ND AMENDMENT DEFINED AS APPLYING TO MILITIAS ONLY thank God the President of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Reagan was defeated in this!
the republicans were the only political party in 230 years, to try to ELIMINATE private gun ownership UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
put that in your pipe and smoke it!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 11, 2016 18:57:14 GMT -6
Tman you stated in another post about facts, yet on this topic you want to stick to one point? A weak one at that.
Let's us look at years and years of gun issues and who votes for tougher gun laws and who votes and brings bills for more gun rights? The deciding vote was Mr Scalia and while we say justices are not political we all know that to be BS, we get a Liberial majority and the gun rights will wither on the vine fact.
You made the statement awhile back that the democrats where more gun favorable than republicans, that simply goes against the facts of bills introduced and voting records. You also made the statement what is wrong with the gun manufacturers taking a lawsuit for a crime used with their product. Bernie Sanders clearly stated that is putting an end to gun manufacturing in the US did he not?
even though you keep bringing up Bush I will take the republicans on any issues dealing with guns any day over the democrats as the records are their to prove who is anti gun and who is pro gun rights through the years.
Anyone who is a strong gun advocate clearly knows what party to vote for to keep their 2nd amendment rights in as whole of a form as possible.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 11, 2016 20:37:26 GMT -6
The main reason I take a hard look at all candidates on many issues is because for every protection there is a loss in most cases. This is really true with very strong advocates of gun control as many also want to reduce or even eliminate many of the services and protections I prefer to be left to me to decide or keep. Those things in my case would include public pensions, SSI, Medicare, my daughter's right to choose, public funds for public property but not public funds for private education etc. etc.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 12, 2016 7:34:52 GMT -6
Bryce we can either reduce some of it or tax it more, that is where the different of opinions come into play. The problem with taxing more it keeps going on so as you stated for every win their is a loss.
What republican candidate wants to eliminate anything you mentioned above?
Have real talks on real subjects is great. SSI tax is at 6.2 percent today from the persons payroll the total is 12.4 percent and still is not keeping it solvent for the future generations.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 12, 2016 9:35:56 GMT -6
TC- you need to stop making things up! I SAID that if YOU want to look at who tried to do the most damage to the 2nd, look no further that the GOP. and that's a fact, you can spin it, you can twist it, you can put it where the sun don't shine but that changes things not one iota.
I'd love to have a real debate with you, but after 10 years, that dream is shattered.
I mean, you can't even name who you support-
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 12, 2016 17:48:42 GMT -6
I am not arguing the fact that SSI and Medicare need some serious discussion. I was stating the fact you stated that no GOP politicians or candidates were talking about this. The jest of your post was none were going to do anything with SSI. Which is true are they or are they not engaging in this discussion and the answer is yes. It would be good for you to keep abreast of those candidates you find more to your liking than the Dem's. Or maybe your like many that make personal decisions regarding elections instead of policy related decisions. That could explain a lot of your posts and like many current GOP supporters what we stand for is anything other than what a Democrat could offer. A classic example of labeling. The National Enquirer approach to major issues.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 13, 2016 6:10:13 GMT -6
Tman not going to spend the time looking up your exact quote from months ago, but you feel that the dems are better off for gun rights than republicans yes or no and why ? Please add more than Bushes comments on something headed to SCOTUS.
Bryce, labeling fits where the label pretty simple. I do not believe I said no talking , I believe the point I made was they are not going to take away SSI.
I stand for anything other than the democrats offer because I feel what they offer is bad our country as a whole, that has been the point of this all along Jeesh.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 13, 2016 10:38:40 GMT -6
you stand for nothing unless you name who you support- to bash others is just silly without doing so
yes, I know you won't bother to look up the quote- yet that didn't prevent you from initially making a falsehood
if the GOP is so worried about SS- why don't they vote to put back the trillions they borrowed to fight Georges war? money isn't the issue- in no FREAKING way is money the issue- PRIORITIES are.
sadly, the GOP wants to spend the money to control people, the dems want to spend it to liberate people- big difference.
and once again, the political writer TC, doesn't have the guts to say WHO he supports- no the question is who could he possibly support that is so insidious that he doesn't want anyone to know? What views does TC secretly hold, that he is ashamed to let his friends and neighbors know?
Can you even go on record against hate and racism? do you support the KKK?
what a mystery- TC bashes everyone, even refuses to admit his GOP tired to eliminate the 2nd amendment- but refuse to do a simple thing- name who he supports.
maybe he doesn't even vote- and that would be sad
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 13, 2016 19:45:00 GMT -6
Tman this sentence tells me all I need to know: sadly, the GOP wants to spend the money to control people, the dems want to spend it to liberate people- big difference.
Really? I mean really? Who wants to give out all the free hand outs and pay for it with tax payers money? You surely cannot be serious with your comment?
MORE govt entrusion is liberating? Really? I wonder if we ask the people of China if the govt ruling their lives is liberating? Canada is more liberating with ultra hig taxation rates? Indian reservations are liberated? Please tell me how?
The dems control all Indian reservations telling the Indian peolple, do not elect a Republican as they will take everything we give you. The only 5 counties in South Dakota that consistently vote democrat are the 5 counties with a Inidan reservation residing in such. You think the tribes are liberated? Really?
On the record of racism? Please. The KKK LOL.
This topic is on guns and who is for the rights of Americans and who is not correct? Again tell me why the democrats are more pro gun than republicans please.
|
|