Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Interesting, although it is not 10 years since I last shot clay with an over & under...but as I say, not seen here at my local village idiot level. Perhaps a pro competition thing. Side by sides only?
Combining two threads Doc: I suppose you probably know that Sir Jackie Stewart was (is?) an Olympic class clay shooter? Very very fast reactions and good eye....
Combining two threads Doc: I suppose you probably know that Sir Jackie Stewart was (is?) an Olympic class clay shooter? Very very fast reactions and good eye....
Bravo!!!
I beg to 'differ' re: one thing he said though. He said, "We all know what the Second Amendment says."
Obviously from their record, congress members clearly DON'T. That must be the case because they surely wouldn't just purposely ignore it, would they. Well, of course not.
I beg to 'differ' re: one thing he said though. He said, "We all know what the Second Amendment says."
Obviously from their record, congress members clearly DON'T. That must be the case because they surely wouldn't just purposely ignore it, would they. Well, of course not.
Last edited:
Alert: Universal Background Checks Explained</SPAN>
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President
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."
Below is an article I wrote explaining universal background checks. I hope it clears up any confusion. For a pdf copy click here. -- MPH
"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
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Here is the NRA in full support of background checks!
0:15
Wayne LaPierre Speaks in Favor of Universal Background Checksby scooteristi425 views
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=M-oqfPojhec
So did a bunch of mass GUN slaughter change his mind, or is he just another lying sack of shit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=M-oqfPojhec
So did a bunch of mass GUN slaughter change his mind, or is he just another lying sack of shit?
Last edited:
Here is the NRA in full support of background checks!
0:15Wayne LaPierre Speaks in Favor of Universal Background Checksby scooteristi425 views
Wayne LaPierre Speaks in Favor of Universal Background Checks - YouTube
So did a bunch of mass GUN slaughter change his mind, or is he just another lying sack of shit?
Where's the REST of what he said, Mr. Craik? As is usually the case, the devil is probably in the details here...which knowing the full context of what he said would likely reveal. The 3-4 sentences quoted don't provide the full context in which he made them. I'd be willing to bet the farm that what he said in that vid was instantly followed by a "BUT" or "HOWEVER", right, Jim? (I'm trying to find somewhere where the full vid is posted. All the vids I've found so far cut him off where YOUR link does. I have to wonder WHY???)
This looks & smells an awful lot like another "surrender to me" edit job created to make it appear he backs those checks 110%. I say it's bull feathers.
Edit:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah HAAAAAA...as I suspected (couldn't find a VID, but):
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The country's most powerful gun rights lobbying group has reversed its decade-old stance on requiring instant background checks for people buying guns at gun shows.
"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said in 1999 after the Columbine High School shooting in suburban Denver. "No loopholes anywhere for anyone."
But now, LaPierre says GUN LAWS REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE INEFFECTIVE AT KEEPING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.
"I DO NOT BELIEVE the way the law is working now, unfortunately, THAT IT DOES ANY GOOD to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors," LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
LaPierre said the government needs to prosecute more people who try to illegally buy guns from licensed dealers. WITHOUT BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS, he said, MORE BACKGROUND CHECKS WOULD ONLY BE A BURDEN ON LAW-ABIDING GUN BUYERS.
LaPierre has also suggested that AN EXPANSION OF BACKGROUND CHECKS WOULD LEAD TO A NATIONAL REGISTRY OF GUN OWNERS." (Yahoo News article/coverage)
Bear in mind I have no way to know what all was omitted from the above either!
So, once AGAIN, sir, it appears what you've claimed a person has said isn't quite what you said 'twas.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jack,
You posted this:
Yet, I found this, it's a GOP poll.
WASHINGTON -- A survey of National Rifle Association members and non-affiliated gun owners conducted by a prominent Republican pollster shows that there is broad support for certain provisions that would restrict the sale of guns.
According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.
The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz.
You posted this:
Yet, I found this, it's a GOP poll.
WASHINGTON -- A survey of National Rifle Association members and non-affiliated gun owners conducted by a prominent Republican pollster shows that there is broad support for certain provisions that would restrict the sale of guns.
According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.
The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz.
I don't know what Jim wrote since I ignore him.
Here is the complete testimony given by Mr. LaPierre in 1999 from which the recent TV ad was taken:
05/27/99 Committee on the Judiciary - LaPierre Statement
:thumbsup:
Here is the complete testimony given by Mr. LaPierre in 1999 from which the recent TV ad was taken:
05/27/99 Committee on the Judiciary - LaPierre Statement
:thumbsup:
...+2!
I'm surprised he supports the fed. "gun-free school zone" law in its present form though, given the fact that "gun-free zones" have the record of mass carnage they do. I'd think he'd at least want to allow people everywhere who hold CCWs (CPLs, whatever you want to call a concealed weapons permit) to "carry" in such zones.
I was totally s-t-u-n-n-e-d to discover that, here in Washington State, any person who has a CCW is actually exempted from the gfz law when they're picking up or dropping of a student!
Under 'exemptions' section:
"(e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student..."
Man, what a boon that is. 'No need to stop in the middle of running errands in order to run home and store one's firearm first before picking up/dropping off a child at school. :thumbsup:
I'm surprised he supports the fed. "gun-free school zone" law in its present form though, given the fact that "gun-free zones" have the record of mass carnage they do. I'd think he'd at least want to allow people everywhere who hold CCWs (CPLs, whatever you want to call a concealed weapons permit) to "carry" in such zones.
I was totally s-t-u-n-n-e-d to discover that, here in Washington State, any person who has a CCW is actually exempted from the gfz law when they're picking up or dropping of a student!
Under 'exemptions' section:
"(e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student..."
Man, what a boon that is. 'No need to stop in the middle of running errands in order to run home and store one's firearm first before picking up/dropping off a child at school. :thumbsup:
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Pepe Le Pue said this:
"We think it 's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mental ill are in the system."
*************************
This was not followed by a "BUT or a HOWEVER"
It was followed by this.........................
"This isn 't new, or a change of position, or a concession. I've been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances."
***********************
So Mr Le Pue makes the point that this is not a change of position or a consession and he says he has been on the record and has been consistant........................
So, was he lying then or is he lying now?
"We think it 's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mental ill are in the system."
*************************
This was not followed by a "BUT or a HOWEVER"
It was followed by this.........................
"This isn 't new, or a change of position, or a concession. I've been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances."
***********************
So Mr Le Pue makes the point that this is not a change of position or a consession and he says he has been on the record and has been consistant........................
So, was he lying then or is he lying now?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
So the head of the NRA says we sould have mandatory background checks at all gun shows, with no loopholes.
He goes on to say that this is not a new NRA position, or a changed NRA position, he says that the NRA has consistently held this position that all purchases at all gun shows should require a background check.
I agree, let's pass Mr Le Pue's law!!!
He goes on to say that this is not a new NRA position, or a changed NRA position, he says that the NRA has consistently held this position that all purchases at all gun shows should require a background check.
I agree, let's pass Mr Le Pue's law!!!
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
But then what??? Somehow I don't think criminals will be that motivated to register their weapons. How about the "undocumented urban socially affiliated parties" (i.e. criminal gangs) that run crack in South Central, Highland Park or the Pico-Union neighborhoods of Los Angeles? I wonder what their registration rate will be. Maybe the newspaper will publish the lawfully registered gun owners to simplify the task of directing the "undocumented urban socially affiliated parties" to locations where weapons (I think single shot muskets are the only thing legal in California these days) may be obtained at a significant cost savings.
In California, officials are allowed to confiscate guns from convicted felons and those with a history of mental illness. But... the state's fiscal woes have triggered staff shortages and funding cuts that have left a backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarm, according to Stephen Lindley, chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice. According to the California DOJ, that's nearly 40,000 handguns and assault weapons currently in circulation that shouldn't be. I guess they need to build those commuter trains instead.
Let's face it, if this was such a burning issue, Mr. Obama would have addressed it in his first term after one of the mass shooting then. Why now??? Simple, bleed the NRA of funds so they will have a more limited role in the mid-term elections. This will assist Mr. Obama in winning back the house and control of Congress.
Funny, I didn't see him use any school kids in the backdrop (as he did with his gun control measure ceremony) when he mandated religious affiliated institutions provide sterilization, and abortion inducing "health care" drugs.
Out of curiosity, when Mr. Obama selects a U.S. citizen for "execution by drone" is that considered an "extremely late term abortion"?
In California, officials are allowed to confiscate guns from convicted felons and those with a history of mental illness. But... the state's fiscal woes have triggered staff shortages and funding cuts that have left a backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarm, according to Stephen Lindley, chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice. According to the California DOJ, that's nearly 40,000 handguns and assault weapons currently in circulation that shouldn't be. I guess they need to build those commuter trains instead.
Let's face it, if this was such a burning issue, Mr. Obama would have addressed it in his first term after one of the mass shooting then. Why now??? Simple, bleed the NRA of funds so they will have a more limited role in the mid-term elections. This will assist Mr. Obama in winning back the house and control of Congress.
Funny, I didn't see him use any school kids in the backdrop (as he did with his gun control measure ceremony) when he mandated religious affiliated institutions provide sterilization, and abortion inducing "health care" drugs.
Out of curiosity, when Mr. Obama selects a U.S. citizen for "execution by drone" is that considered an "extremely late term abortion"?
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
Read the entire 'white paper' on drone strikes on Americans
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
Talk about a vague and open ended definition....
So the current administration gave itself a free pass to kill Americans if it thinks they may be a threat even if it doesn't have evidence. And you wonder why we don't trust the administration.
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
Read the entire 'white paper' on drone strikes on Americans
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
Talk about a vague and open ended definition....
So the current administration gave itself a free pass to kill Americans if it thinks they may be a threat even if it doesn't have evidence. And you wonder why we don't trust the administration.
Pat
Supporter
danimal;399144 “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future said:
