***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (7 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

Just wondering, since the word Tyranny has now taken the place of the word genocide, what does genocide mean?

Here's a piece of advice. Let the grownups engage in this debate.

Do grownups know the definition of the words they are using? Apparently not..You jumped someones ### for not using the word Tyranny in the context of your made up definition.. Apparently, in Timmyland , someone using the word tyranny in the context of it's true definition is offensive to people that died at the hands of a genocidal maniac..Your buddy calling his boss a tyrant is offensive.. who knew?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think it's irrational for people facing this decision to feel like they are dealing with a moderate level of tyranny.

What does this even mean? This is where the discussion becomes pointless. There is no such thing as a "moderate level of tyranny." Tyranny is tyranny, and its really offensive to those who have suffered under it to compare NY state gun laws to tyranny. Give me a ####### break.

I'm kind of afraid to ask, but just who are those people that we have just offended?

Oh, I don't know. The victims of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, North Korea, etc. comes to mind. Anyone who has suffered under a real tyranny would laugh and/or be insulted by the use of the term here. Much like the African-American athlete who compares the NFL to slavery and announces, after receiving criticism, that he has been "lynched", it's the height of absurdity.

Nice that you have your own accepted definition of the word tyranny. But I think the rest of us will stick with the real definition k?

If the "real definition" includes gun restrictions in New York, then no it isn't okay.

Well I guess you should change the definition to suit your argument.. carry on.. Just wondering, since the word Tyranny has now taken the place of the word genocide, what does genocide mean?

Quite the opposite, actually. We're going to make our definition of genocide comport with your treatment of the word tyranny. From now on, genocide will include telling a woman of a different race that she should be on birth control.

Hey, there is a definition for the word.. seems it was being used in the context of the definition..

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't think it's irrational for people facing this decision to feel like they are dealing with a moderate level of tyranny.

What does this even mean? This is where the discussion becomes pointless. There is no such thing as a "moderate level of tyranny." Tyranny is tyranny, and its really offensive to those who have suffered under it to compare NY state gun laws to tyranny. Give me a ####### break.

I'm kind of afraid to ask, but just who are those people that we have just offended?

Oh, I don't know. The victims of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, North Korea, etc. comes to mind. Anyone who has suffered under a real tyranny would laugh and/or be insulted by the use of the term here. Much like the African-American athlete who compares the NFL to slavery and announces, after receiving criticism, that he has been "lynched", it's the height of absurdity.

Nice that you have your own accepted definition of the word tyranny. But I think the rest of us will stick with the real definition k?

If the "real definition" includes gun restrictions in New York, then no it isn't okay.

Well I guess you should change the definition to suit your argument.. carry on.. Just wondering, since the word Tyranny has now taken the place of the word genocide, what does genocide mean?

You're still here? And giving the coffee smiley? You lost your posting rights when you proved yourself to be absolutely worthless. It's utterly hilarious that you show up in here, much less are waiting on someone else to answer to you. Go back into hiding.

 

[mad sweeney]

Just wondering, since the word Tyranny has now taken the place of the word genocide, what does genocide mean?

Here's a piece of advice. Let the grownups engage in this debate.

Do grownups know the definition of the words they are using? Apparently not..You jumped someones ### for not using the word Tyranny in the context of your made up definition.. Apparently, in Timmyland , someone using the word tyranny in the context of it's true definition is offensive to people that died at the hands of a genocidal maniac..Your buddy calling his boss a tyrant is offensive.. who knew?

What would you know about what grown ups do?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think it's irrational for people facing this decision to feel like they are dealing with a moderate level of tyranny.

What does this even mean? This is where the discussion becomes pointless. There is no such thing as a "moderate level of tyranny." Tyranny is tyranny, and its really offensive to those who have suffered under it to compare NY state gun laws to tyranny. Give me a ####### break.

I'm kind of afraid to ask, but just who are those people that we have just offended?

Oh, I don't know. The victims of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, North Korea, etc. comes to mind. Anyone who has suffered under a real tyranny would laugh and/or be insulted by the use of the term here. Much like the African-American athlete who compares the NFL to slavery and announces, after receiving criticism, that he has been "lynched", it's the height of absurdity.

Nice that you have your own accepted definition of the word tyranny. But I think the rest of us will stick with the real definition k?

If the "real definition" includes gun restrictions in New York, then no it isn't okay.

Well I guess you should change the definition to suit your argument.. carry on.. Just wondering, since the word Tyranny has now taken the place of the word genocide, what does genocide mean?

You're still here? And giving the coffee smiley? You lost your posting rights when you proved yourself to be absolutely worthless. It's utterly hilarious that you show up in here, much less are waiting on someone else to answer to you. Go back into hiding.

Into hiding? lol.. whatever sweatcheeks..You poped into another thread, doing what you usually do, like you're doing here, trolling, made an ignorant comment on a topic you were uneducated about, trying to give someone a hard time. I corrected you, you were embarrassed, and now you're harassing me at every post because you looked like a fool, and I pointed it out..

Sorry I clowned on you bud.. You can move along now.. Whats good for the goose, evidently isn't good for the gander..

 

[pantherclub]

WTF is the NRA doing?When will people realize they are hurting your cause more than helping it. This is why people think you gun nuts are loony tunes.http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15YWCA? Helen Hunt?

 

[Novice2]

WTF is the NRA doing?

When will people realize they are hurting your cause more than helping it. This is why people think you gun nuts are loony tunes.

http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

YWCA? Helen Hunt?

Is the point here that YWCA or Helen hunt does not contribute or support common sense gun control?

 

[pantherclub]

WTF is the NRA doing?

When will people realize they are hurting your cause more than helping it. This is why people think you gun nuts are loony tunes.

http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

YWCA? Helen Hunt?

Is the point here that YWCA or Helen hunt does not contribute or support common sense gun control?

My point or the NRA's point?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

WTF is the NRA doing?

When will people realize they are hurting your cause more than helping it. This is why people think you gun nuts are loony tunes.

http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

YWCA? Helen Hunt?

Is the point here that YWCA or Helen hunt does not contribute or support common sense gun control?

My point or the NRA's point?

What is your outrage about?

 

[pantherclub]

WTF is the NRA doing?

When will people realize they are hurting your cause more than helping it. This is why people think you gun nuts are loony tunes.

http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

YWCA? Helen Hunt?

Is the point here that YWCA or Helen hunt does not contribute or support common sense gun control?

My point or the NRA's point?

What is your outrage about?

There is no outrage, I am just pointng out the lunacy of the NRA to produce such a list. The NRA looks like idiots and they are only creating a larger divide. Seriously you dont even know what those people, organizations or papers have said to be added to the list and the members are just going to lap it up.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

WTF is the NRA doing?

When will people realize they are hurting your cause more than helping it. This is why people think you gun nuts are loony tunes.

http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

YWCA? Helen Hunt?

Is the point here that YWCA or Helen hunt does not contribute or support common sense gun control?

My point or the NRA's point?

What is your outrage about?

There is no outrage, I am just pointng out the lunacy of the NRA to produce such a list. The NRA looks like idiots and they are only creating a larger divide. Seriously you dont even know what those people, organizations or papers have said to be added to the list and the members are just going to lap it up.

Lunacy? Idiots?Ok.

They make it pretty clear what they "did".

For example:

The following celebrities and national figures have lent their name and notoriety to anti-gun causes, speaking out for anti-gun legislation and providing a voice for anti-gun organizations.

If they are going to "fight the fight", you bet your ### they will be given the spotlight on this divide they are creating.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't think it's irrational for people facing this decision to feel like they are dealing with a moderate level of tyranny.

What does this even mean? This is where the discussion becomes pointless. There is no such thing as a "moderate level of tyranny." Tyranny is tyranny, and its really offensive to those who have suffered under it to compare NY state gun laws to tyranny. Give me a ####### break.

I'm kind of afraid to ask, but just who are those people that we have just offended?

Oh, I don't know. The victims of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, North Korea, etc. comes to mind. Anyone who has suffered under a real tyranny would laugh and/or be insulted by the use of the term here. Much like the African-American athlete who compares the NFL to slavery and announces, after receiving criticism, that he has been "lynched", it's the height of absurdity.

Nice that you have your own accepted definition of the word tyranny. But I think the rest of us will stick with the real definition k?

If the "real definition" includes gun restrictions in New York, then no it isn't okay.

Well I guess you should change the definition to suit your argument.. carry on.. Just wondering, since the word Tyranny has now taken the place of the word genocide, what does genocide mean?

You're still here? And giving the coffee smiley? You lost your posting rights when you proved yourself to be absolutely worthless. It's utterly hilarious that you show up in here, much less are waiting on someone else to answer to you. Go back into hiding.

Into hiding? lol.. whatever sweatcheeks..You poped into another thread, doing what you usually do, like you're doing here, trolling, made an ignorant comment on a topic you were uneducated about, trying to give someone a hard time. I corrected you, you were embarrassed, and now you're harassing me at every post because you looked like a fool, and I pointed it out..

Sorry I clowned on you bud.. You can move along now.. Whats good for the goose, evidently isn't good for the gander..

Nobody's buying it. You flapped your lips and when it came time to back it up, even after repeatedly saying you would, you disappeared. I gave you the opportunity for me to never speak to you again, all you had to do was something that you repeatedly and condescendgingly said was easy, and you couldn't even back yourself up one teeny, tiny bit, even editing out questions so you could only reply to what you wanted. Tough talk means exactly squat, just like anything you say after an LHUCKsian flop like you had, in two different threads.

You clowned me... One of us can admit he was wrong, the other moves heaven and earth to get around having to admit they were wrong while they were making reveling in pointing out a mistake. Yeah, I feel sheepish. Hopefully you're just trying to bluster through and hope people don't remember the cowardly exit you beat outta here, and that you're not actually that self delusional. If you are, that's very, very, very sad.

Over still stands. I'll never reply to you again if you can but prove in one little story from anywhere what you claimed. Until then, you shouldn't cry about trolling, the means to end it has been in your court all week. And you said it was easy!

 

[GroveDiesel]

Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?

 

[FootballDummy]

WTF is the NRA doing?

When will people realize they are hurting your cause more than helping it. This is why people think you gun nuts are loony tunes.

http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

YWCA? Helen Hunt?

Is the point here that YWCA or Helen hunt does not contribute or support common sense gun control?

My point or the NRA's point?

What is your outrage about?

There is no outrage, I am just pointng out the lunacy of the NRA to produce such a list. The NRA looks like idiots and they are only creating a larger divide. Seriously you dont even know what those people, organizations or papers have said to be added to the list and the members are just going to lap it up.

Lunacy? Idiots?Ok.

Yes.

 

[smotherhook]

Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?

i know what the people on the right think.

 

[17seconds]

John Stewart on background checks

(sorry the video is on moveon)

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Minnesota Democrats noticeably absent during this public testimony meant to educate them on the differences between firearms.

, it's because they had other appointments and ran over the scheduled time However further investigation shows:

Debra Hilstrom had a committee meeting at 2:15,

Shannon Savick DID NOT have another committee meeting,

Erik Simonson had a TAXES committee meeting at 12:30 (this ran until 1215)

Dan Schoen also is on the Taxes committee,

As is Linda Slocum.

HOWEVER, this section in the first link above occurred around 11:30AM, During the SCHEDULED duration of the meeting (It was scheduled until 12:00)

 

[GroveDiesel]

Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?

i know what the people on the right think.

That's not really an answer now, is it? What do YOU think it's for?For perspective: That would be enough to supply an all out war the size of the Afghan/Iraq War for 30 straight years.

 

[Novice2]

Minnesota Democrats noticeably absent during this public testimony meant to educate them on the differences between firearms.

Democrats care only about banning things.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Minnesota Democrats noticeably absent during this public testimony meant to educate them on the differences between firearms.

That these elected officials won't be elected officials much longer by pulling stunts like this.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Guns don't kill people, cops kill people.

Two unarmed Asian women delivering newspapers in L.A. driving a vehicle that looked "similar" to a vehicle being driven by criminals by similar they mean a gray 4 door Titan

F'n California...A police chief just said that guns are not defensive weapons. He said his officers don't carry them as defensive weapons, but as offensive weapons.

All this taken from a press conference yesterday. I am working while listening, so I apologize if I got some of the details wrong. Feel free to correct me and I'll edit the post... But I think this is what I just heard.

[*]Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.

[*]EDIT Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds.

[*]6 round magazine limit -- EDIT Apparently it is the normal 10 round limit.

[*]ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)

[*]100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.

[*]Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder -- Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.

[*]Bullet Buttons will become illegal -- All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.

[*]All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.

[*]All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance

Basically they have just proposed to make all semi-automatic weapons, as well as most shotguns, illegal.

SourcesMayor Lee

Police Chief Magnus & Police Chief James

Mayor Villaraigosa

Senator Hancock

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

President Obama is saying that 70% of NRA members support "universal background checks." I assure you, that simply is not true!

It appears he is citing a poll question from one of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's phony polls of people who "self-identify" as NRA members.

The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks."

Marion P. Hammer's response:"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

By Marion P. Hammer

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms, for livelihood and profit, without having a federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

 

[FootballDummy]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

President Obama is saying that 70% of NRA members support "universal background checks." I assure you, that simply is not true!

It appears he is citing a poll question from one of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's phony polls of people who "self-identify" as NRA members.

The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks."

Marion P. Hammer's response:"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

By Marion P. Hammer

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms, for livelihood and profit, without having a federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

I like this thread because I can view last post and tell if it was by a moron or not. You qualify.

 

[Hoosier16]

Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?

i know what the people on the right think.

That's not really an answer now, is it? What do YOU think it's for?For perspective: That would be enough to supply an all out war the size of the Afghan/Iraq War for 30 straight years.

Or, at 15 million rounds per year, 100+ years of training.There aren't many (or any) explanations that make sense, other than the obvious one that gets you labeled a nut - civil unrest. They have successfully driven up prices and dried up supplies, if that was their intention. But, that doesn't make much sense because they can't do that forever. Well, maybe they can with another few rounds of printing money.I'd love to hear some legitimate reasons.

 

[timschochet]

Minnesota Democrats noticeably absent during this public testimony meant to educate them on the differences between firearms.

These guys live in their own reality. It's sad and pathetic.

 

[timschochet]

Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?

i know what the people on the right think.

That's not really an answer now, is it? What do YOU think it's for?For perspective: That would be enough to supply an all out war the size of the Afghan/Iraq War for 30 straight years.

Or, at 15 million rounds per year, 100+ years of training.There aren't many (or any) explanations that make sense, other than the obvious one that gets you labeled a nut - civil unrest. They have successfully driven up prices and dried up supplies, if that was their intention. But, that doesn't make much sense because they can't do that forever. Well, maybe they can with another few rounds of printing money.I'd love to hear some legitimate reasons.

No you wouldn't. You clearly revel in the wacko.

 

[timschochet]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

President Obama is saying that 70% of NRA members support "universal background checks." I assure you, that simply is not true!

It appears he is citing a poll question from one of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's phony polls of people who "self-identify" as NRA members.

The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks."

Marion P. Hammer's response:"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

By Marion P. Hammer

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms, for livelihood and profit, without having a federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

THIS is the best argument the NRA can make? Like listening to a third grader.

 

[Hoosier16]

Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?

i know what the people on the right think.

That's not really an answer now, is it? What do YOU think it's for?For perspective: That would be enough to supply an all out war the size of the Afghan/Iraq War for 30 straight years.

Or, at 15 million rounds per year, 100+ years of training.There aren't many (or any) explanations that make sense, other than the obvious one that gets you labeled a nut - civil unrest. They have successfully driven up prices and dried up supplies, if that was their intention. But, that doesn't make much sense because they can't do that forever. Well, maybe they can with another few rounds of printing money.I'd love to hear some legitimate reasons.

No you wouldn't. You clearly revel in the wacko.

TryETA: While I expected that response, I honestly didn't expect that from you. I think I've been pretty moderate in this thread. Now, you are faced with an instance where you don't have an answer and you resort to name calling. I didn't say I believed that to be the reason, but it's the only one I could think of. Seriously, is there any reason you can think of as to why the DHS needs 1.6 billion rounds of ammo? At a time when we are running a huge deficit, does it makes sense to spend money on ammo? I'm open and would love to hear an explanation. If not, maybe just an "I don't know and I don't want to think about it" would suffice.

 

[smotherhook]

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?<br>

<br><br>i know what the people on the right think.<br>

<br><br>That's not really an answer now, is it? What do YOU think it's for?<br><br>For perspective: That would be enough to supply an all out war the size of the Afghan/Iraq War for 30 straight years.<br>

<br><br>Or, at 15 million rounds per year, 100+ years of training.<br><br>There aren't many (or any) explanations that make sense, other than the obvious one that gets you labeled a nut - civil unrest. They have successfully driven up prices and dried up supplies, if that was their intention. But, that doesn't make much sense because they can't do that forever. Well, maybe they can with another few rounds of printing money.<br><br>I'd love to hear some legitimate reasons.<br>

<br>No you wouldn't. You clearly revel in the wacko.<br>

<br><br>Try<div><br></div><div>ETA: While I expected that response, I honestly didn't expect that from you. I think I've been pretty moderate in this thread. Now, you are faced with an instance where you don't have an answer and you resort to name calling. </div><div><br></div><div>I didn't say I believed that to be the reason, but it's the only one I could think of. Seriously, is there any reason you can think of as to why the DHS needs 1.6 billion rounds of ammo? At a time when we are running a huge deficit, does it makes sense to spend money on ammo? I'm open and would love to hear an explanation. If not, maybe just an "I don't know and I don't want to think about it" would suffice.</div>

yeah, i would like to hear several good reasons. imo, buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo sounds like a country that is going to war.

 

[timschochet]

Hoosier I apologize. I shouldn't have written that about you because you have been one of the more level headed gun rights supporters in this thread. Its just that there are so many extremists in here I honestly forgot who I was replying to. As to the issue you brought up, I guess I just don't care. It's not, IMO, relevant to the discussion unless you're actively looking for a govt conspiracy. I'm not.

 

[smotherhook]

Hoosier I apologize. I shouldn't have written that about you because you have been one of the more level headed gun rights supporters in this thread. Its just that there are so many extremists in here I honestly forgot who I was replying to. As to the issue you brought up, I guess I just don't care. It's not, IMO, relevant to the discussion unless you're actively looking for a govt conspiracy. I'm not.

why isnt it relevant? there has to be some reason that the 1.6 billion rounds were purchasedcrickets tim, crickets?

 

[ichris]

I don't think timschochet is interested in debate anymore. Three of his previous posts on this page were just insults. Meanwhile Americans are continuing to vote with their wallets. Another 2.5 million NICS background checks completed in January. The NICS numbers are down about 10% from December. But that may be more related to inventory levels than demand.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think timschochet is interested in debate anymore. Three of his previous posts on this page were just insults.

You're right that I have been rude and it's unwarranted. As to debate, I'm not sure what the point is. We've been over all of these issues, and we obviously don't see eye to eye. Give me something new to discuss.

 

[timschochet]

Hoosier I apologize. I shouldn't have written that about you because you have been one of the more level headed gun rights supporters in this thread. Its just that there are so many extremists in here I honestly forgot who I was replying to. As to the issue you brought up, I guess I just don't care. It's not, IMO, relevant to the discussion unless you're actively looking for a govt conspiracy. I'm not.

why isnt it relevant? there has to be some reason that the 1.6 billion rounds were purchasedcrickets tim, crickets?

It's not relevant to the subject of gun control. Unless you're into government conspiracies. I'm not. Therefore, I assume that there is some other reason for the purchase that has nothing to do with the government seizing all private firearms and imposing a dictatorship. Whatever that other reason is, I frankly don't care. The whole question bores me. Do you have something new to add about universal background checks?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Hoosier I apologize. I shouldn't have written that about you because you have been one of the more level headed gun rights supporters in this thread. Its just that there are so many extremists in here I honestly forgot who I was replying to.

As to the issue you brought up, I guess I just don't care. It's not, IMO, relevant to the discussion unless you're actively looking for a govt conspiracy. I'm not.

why isnt it relevant? there has to be some reason that the 1.6 billion rounds were purchasedcrickets tim, crickets?

It's not relevant to the subject of gun control. Unless you're into government conspiracies. I'm not. Therefore, I assume that there is some other reason for the purchase that has nothing to do with the government seizing all private firearms and imposing a dictatorship. Whatever that other reason is, I frankly don't care. The whole question bores me. Do you have something new to add about universal background checks?

They're useless!

 

[timschochet]

Hoosier I apologize. I shouldn't have written that about you because you have been one of the more level headed gun rights supporters in this thread. Its just that there are so many extremists in here I honestly forgot who I was replying to.

As to the issue you brought up, I guess I just don't care. It's not, IMO, relevant to the discussion unless you're actively looking for a govt conspiracy. I'm not.

why isnt it relevant? there has to be some reason that the 1.6 billion rounds were purchasedcrickets tim, crickets?

It's not relevant to the subject of gun control. Unless you're into government conspiracies. I'm not. Therefore, I assume that there is some other reason for the purchase that has nothing to do with the government seizing all private firearms and imposing a dictatorship. Whatever that other reason is, I frankly don't care. The whole question bores me. Do you have something new to add about universal background checks?

They're useless!

I disagree. And your statement isn't new. You made the exact same statement several weeks ago in this very thread.

 

[Henry Ford]

The DHS didn't purchase 1.6 billion rounds. It accepted bids for 1.6 billion rounds, with some to be purchased now and option contracts for future deliveries over a period of years.The .40 calibers, for instance, make up 450 million rounds, and are produced by ATK. The actual contract is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with a maximum of 450 million rounds for DHS and ICE. It's a 12-month contract for ammunition at a locked-in price, with four option-years which can be picked up.Basically, the DHS and ICE are aware that ammunition prices rise, and have locked manufacturers in at this rate for several years' worth of ammunition, no matter how much they need.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Hoosier I apologize. I shouldn't have written that about you because you have been one of the more level headed gun rights supporters in this thread. Its just that there are so many extremists in here I honestly forgot who I was replying to.

As to the issue you brought up, I guess I just don't care. It's not, IMO, relevant to the discussion unless you're actively looking for a govt conspiracy. I'm not.

why isnt it relevant? there has to be some reason that the 1.6 billion rounds were purchasedcrickets tim, crickets?

It's not relevant to the subject of gun control. Unless you're into government conspiracies. I'm not. Therefore, I assume that there is some other reason for the purchase that has nothing to do with the government seizing all private firearms and imposing a dictatorship. Whatever that other reason is, I frankly don't care. The whole question bores me. Do you have something new to add about universal background checks?

They're useless!

I disagree. And your statement isn't new. You made the exact same statement several weeks ago in this very thread.

Oh, I thought it was new because it was on a new page. Thought that was what this thread was for. The few times I've checked into this thread it is the same ####### arguments, from both sides, with increased personal attacks.

 

[smotherhook]

The DHS didn't purchase 1.6 billion rounds. It accepted bids for 1.6 billion rounds, with some to be purchased now and option contracts for future deliveries over a period of years.The .40 calibers, for instance, make up 450 million rounds, and are produced by ATK. The actual contract is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with a maximum of 450 million rounds for DHS and ICE. It's a 12-month contract for ammunition at a locked-in price, with four option-years which can be picked up.Basically, the DHS and ICE are aware that ammunition prices rise, and have locked manufacturers in at this rate for several years' worth of ammunition, no matter how much they need.

i thought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo seems like an absurd number. do you have any statistics for past bids and the numbers of rounds it was for?

 

[greenroom]

The DHS didn't purchase 1.6 billion rounds. It accepted bids for 1.6 billion rounds, with some to be purchased now and option contracts for future deliveries over a period of years.The .40 calibers, for instance, make up 450 million rounds, and are produced by ATK. The actual contract is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with a maximum of 450 million rounds for DHS and ICE. It's a 12-month contract for ammunition at a locked-in price, with four option-years which can be picked up.Basically, the DHS and ICE are aware that ammunition prices rise, and have locked manufacturers in at this rate for several years' worth of ammunition, no matter how much they need.

i thought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo seems like an absurd number. do you have any statistics for past bids and the numbers of rounds it was for?

Why do gun owners need 1000's of rounds of ammo? How about for training purposes and stocking ammo incase we are attacked? There are answers, that do not have the Govt trying to raise prices or go after the average American!!

 

[smotherhook]

The DHS didn't purchase 1.6 billion rounds. It accepted bids for 1.6 billion rounds, with some to be purchased now and option contracts for future deliveries over a period of years.The .40 calibers, for instance, make up 450 million rounds, and are produced by ATK. The actual contract is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with a maximum of 450 million rounds for DHS and ICE. It's a 12-month contract for ammunition at a locked-in price, with four option-years which can be picked up.Basically, the DHS and ICE are aware that ammunition prices rise, and have locked manufacturers in at this rate for several years' worth of ammunition, no matter how much they need.

i thought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo seems like an absurd number. do you have any statistics for past bids and the numbers of rounds it was for?

Why do gun owners need 1000's of rounds of ammo? How about for training purposes and stocking ammo incase we are attacked? There are answers, that do not have the Govt trying to raise prices or go after the average American!!

well, it has been a long time since we were attacked. DHS and ICE should get some great training in for the next 75 years with that amount.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

President Obama is saying that 70% of NRA members support "universal background checks." I assure you, that simply is not true!

It appears he is citing a poll question from one of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's phony polls of people who "self-identify" as NRA members.

The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks."

Marion P. Hammer's response:"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

By Marion P. Hammer

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms, for livelihood and profit, without having a federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

I like this thread because I can view last post and tell if it was by a moron or not. You qualify.

Nice well thought out response.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

President Obama is saying that 70% of NRA members support "universal background checks." I assure you, that simply is not true!

It appears he is citing a poll question from one of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's phony polls of people who "self-identify" as NRA members.

The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks."

Marion P. Hammer's response:"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

By Marion P. Hammer

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms, for livelihood and profit, without having a federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

I like this thread because I can view last post and tell if it was by a moron or not. You qualify.

Nice well thought out response.

Yep, insta-ignore.

 

[timschochet]

Yep, insta-ignore.

It was rude of him to call you a moron. But that editorial was so incredibly poorly written, so lacking in logic, so devoid of responding to the real and cogent arguments that justify universal background checks, that it's amazing that you chose to post it.

 

[cobalt_27]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

President Obama is saying that 70% of NRA members support "universal background checks." I assure you, that simply is not true!

It appears he is citing a poll question from one of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's phony polls of people who "self-identify" as NRA members.

The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks."

Marion P. Hammer's response:"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

By Marion P. Hammer

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms, for livelihood and profit, without having a federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

I like this thread because I can view last post and tell if it was by a moron or not. You qualify.

Nice well thought out response.

So, the paranoid, right wing gun enthusiasts, who clearly don't have an IQ north of 70 with a stiff breeze at their backs, can't/don't formulate a coherent thought and post mindless blather formulated by other paranoid, right wing gun enthusiasts who are equally dim...you give them a pass. But, when someone appropriately points out that what they posted was moronic, you comment there?I do enjoy, however, the comedic value of this thread. Not sure why Tim takes it so seriously, arguing with deranged animals.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

President Obama is saying that 70% of NRA members support "universal background checks." I assure you, that simply is not true!

It appears he is citing a poll question from one of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's phony polls of people who "self-identify" as NRA members.

The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks."

Marion P. Hammer's response:"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

By Marion P. Hammer

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms, for livelihood and profit, without having a federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

I like this thread because I can view last post and tell if it was by a moron or not. You qualify.

Nice well thought out response.

So, the paranoid, right wing gun enthusiasts, who clearly don't have an IQ north of 70 with a stiff breeze at their backs, can't/don't formulate a coherent thought and post mindless blather formulated by other paranoid, right wing gun enthusiasts who are equally dim...you give them a pass. But, when someone appropriately points out that what they posted was moronic, you comment there?I do enjoy, however, the comedic value of this thread. Not sure why Tim takes it so seriously, arguing with deranged animals.

So, the paranoid, left wing gun banners, who clearly don't have an IQ north of 70 with a stiff breeze at their backs, can't/don't formulate a coherent thought and post mindless blather formulated by other paranoid, left wing gun banners who are equally dim...you give them a pass. But, when someone appropriately points out that what they posted was moronic, you comment there?I do enjoy, however, the comedic value of this thread. Not sure why Mr. Chumley takes it so seriously, arguing with deranged animals.

How about that? It fits both ways.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Yep, insta-ignore.

It was rude of him to call you a moron. But that editorial was so incredibly poorly written, so lacking in logic, so devoid of responding to the real and cogent arguments that justify universal background checks, that it's amazing that you chose to post it.

Pick apart the pieces you don't agree with. I already made the argument that universal background checks flat out will not work and any intelligent politician knows this and is just grabbing the low hanging fruit until they can make a push for a national gun registry which I am dead set against and have already gone over a number of times what a laughable failure it is in Canada.It's getting really old listening to the gun grabbers sling insults, I'm just insta-ignoring any of them that follow suit thinking they are being cool.

Our current gun laws do not work / are not being enforced, adding new laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens just adds fuel to the fire. You can argue all you want about the ATF, I have already posted my opinion to that which fell on deaf ears. And yes universal background checks are an inconvenience when you have to add a $50+ tax on selling transfering a firearm to a relative, according to the letter of the law this gun cannot even be loaned to a relative for their safety without going through the proper channels. It is absurd, will not accomplish what it intends to do and is just a stepping stone to a national gun registry after it fails, which is a whole other animal.

 

[timschochet]

Yep, insta-ignore.

It was rude of him to call you a moron. But that editorial was so incredibly poorly written, so lacking in logic, so devoid of responding to the real and cogent arguments that justify universal background checks, that it's amazing that you chose to post it.

Pick apart the pieces you don't agree with. I already made the argument that universal background checks flat out will not work and any intelligent politician knows this and is just grabbing the low hanging fruit until they can make a push for a national gun registry which I am dead set against and have already gone over a number of times what a laughable failure it is in Canada.It's getting really old listening to the gun grabbers sling insults, I'm just insta-ignoring any of them that follow suit thinking they are being cool.

Our current gun laws do not work / are not being enforced, adding new laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens just adds fuel to the fire. You can argue all you want about the ATF, I have already posted my opinion to that which fell on deaf ears. And yes universal background checks are an inconvenience when you have to add a $50+ tax on selling transfering a firearm to a relative, according to the letter of the law this gun cannot even be loaned to a relative for their safety without going through the proper channels. It is absurd, will not accomplish what it intends to do and is just a stepping stone to a national gun registry after it fails, which is a whole other animal.

Nope, sorry, not going to repeat myself anymore. I have made numerous arguments in this thread as to why I believe universal background checks would be effective; you're welcome to look them up if you'd like and respond to them. Up to this point, you have not done so. Instead, just like the NRA guy you quoted, you have chosen to spend your time arguing against straw positions which don't exist. I'm not going to discuss your slippery slope and paranoid dictatorship concerns. It's a complete waste of time. I'm also not going to discuss your concerns about inconvenience, because I don't care. When you're ready to have a serious discussion about background checks (which means no slippery slope, no dictatorship talk, no 2nd Amendment talk, no tyranny talk) let me know. Otherwise, enjoy your debate against phantom opponents.

 

[Henry Ford]

The DHS didn't purchase 1.6 billion rounds. It accepted bids for 1.6 billion rounds, with some to be purchased now and option contracts for future deliveries over a period of years.The .40 calibers, for instance, make up 450 million rounds, and are produced by ATK. The actual contract is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with a maximum of 450 million rounds for DHS and ICE. It's a 12-month contract for ammunition at a locked-in price, with four option-years which can be picked up.Basically, the DHS and ICE are aware that ammunition prices rise, and have locked manufacturers in at this rate for several years' worth of ammunition, no matter how much they need.

i thought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo seems like an absurd number. do you have any statistics for past bids and the numbers of rounds it was for?

No, but I do know ICE is going to need more rounds than in the past. A buddy of mine in ICE has assured me that his current marching orders make firing a weapon a much more likely proposition, and that he's at the range a whole lot more, despite no change in his job title.The Mexican drug war's affects on the U.S. side of the border is being looked at as a war, and ICE is on the front lines. DHS has no intention of allowing things to continue to devolve if it can help it at all.

 

[Spiderman]

Gun legislation is going nowhere fast.