How many members would like a firearms discussion area

You crowed about the Gun Owners of America. Is the fellow on the video representative of that group?

 

Which Pro gunners? The ones portrayed in the video?

 

Joe Walsh apologised to be fair!

 

The GOA is far more principled than the NRA.

Nothing in that video is "representative" of reality in any way, shape, or form.

 

So the GOA fellow doesn't agree with what he said?

 

So it's nonsensical to take that video seriously. Yeah, Cohen got these guys to read material - brief snippets of material you can clearly see the people stuttering over - and cutting away before the people probably said, "What the F is this crap??"

If that's the best you got, better quit while you're behind.

 

If I was asked to say "toddlers are pure, unpolluted by fake news or homosexuality. They don't worry if its politically correct to shoot a mentally deranged gunman, they'd just do it", I'd respond 'do one'. Its called intelligence. <Rule 3>

 

It’s an irrelevant question. No one including me ever suggested the NRA would support liberals. The reason is simple. No liberal congressman or president has ever proposed federal legislation that would keep any law abiding citizen from acquiring a gun. The legislation they propose are for those who are felons, underaged and proven mentally unfit and should be disqualified from owning guns. . The NRA is primarily interested in open market gun sales and works to promote the sales of guns to anyone including felons, underaged and anyone with mental problems Of course they won’t support common sense gun laws. The GOP will accept Russian laundered money and support the criminal NRA intent. Of course then, the nra are against anyone who is truthful about lawful gun sales and will only support gop candidates who aren’t.

 

Factually incorrect. Allowing for the ownership of some firearms, while prohibiting the ownership of other firearms, even though they are all commercially available and common, is keeping a law abiding citizen from being able to legally acquire a firearm. Case in point, the district of columbia arguing that the second amendment applied only to muzzle-loading firearms that existed at the time of the ratification of the united states constitution.

"Should" being the operative word in the above stated. But "should" is not the same thing as "is" or "are" meaning that such is simply not the case. When law enforcement is provided with the authority to determine who can and cannot legally purchase a firearm, because they are tasked with issuing permits for firearm purchases, a great many individuals are denied on their applications without just cause, simply because law enforcement is afforded wide discretion in getting to say such.

Then actually prove such, beyond reasonable doubt, with citations from the NRA itself that it actually supports such at all costs.

 

Yeah, if you wouldn't shoot a mentally deranged gunman, and drop him in his tracks in the name of preserving innocent life, then Hell Yes, you're the problem!!

 

Wow. You support the bloke that says toddlers are better at shooting bad men because of Blink 182.

 

You are totally misinformed. You don’t know the difference between federal and state laws. I guess you think it’s alright for any felon, any underaged person or mentally deranged person be allowed to own full automatic weapons. Because, right now, there is little more that federal laws do. And, they ONLY do this with FFL licensed dealers. There are NO FEDERAL LAWS that do much to restrict secondary sales. You’re conflating state, local and federal laws. You couldn’t possibly be against states restricting assault weapons for example, or any type of particular weapon. If you don’t like what a state does, move. That is a state right.
You do get that none of your rights in the bill of rights are absolute. States and local governments routinely restrict first amendment rights when they interfere with the rights of others. They can certainly do it with everyother one of the bill of rights.

 

That’s laughable. People can buy guns through secondary purchases with NO FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS. That’s violating my rights when I buy from a federal dealer and am required to have a background check, where a felon is not even required to give his real name to a private seller. That’s is laughable.

 

Factually incorrect. All federal restrictions and regulations still apply on secondary purchases.

Utter nonsense. Felons cannot legally purchase firearms, regardless of the source used. If they attempt such, they are still committing a felony offense, and can be prosecuted for such.

 

The difference is indeed known, it is simply irrelevant.

The use of hyperbole is duly noted, and dismissed.

That is how the laws in the united states were intended to work. They apply to those engaged in the business of selling firearms. Private individuals were never intended to be included under such requirements, because enforcement was and still remains impossible.

Factually incorrect. Such can indeed be opposed on the part of myself due to how stupid such an approach is. Not simply stupid in a legal sense, but also a practical sense.

States do not have rights. States have powers and authorities afforded to them under the united states constitution, but they do not have rights. And under the ratification clause of the fourteenth amendment, states cannot refrain from recognizing constitutional rights held by the people.

No one has claimed otherwise in this matter except for yourself. But the standard of "not absolute" does not mean the right can be restricted to whatever degree that is desired by those who hold public office, or subject to arbitrary and capricious restrictions that serve no purpose other than making legal firearms ownership as difficult as possible.

Pray tell, exactly how does legal firearms ownership interfere with the rights of anyone, in any fashion? Explain such, demonstrate that it is not simply more nonsense.

Once that has been accomplished, get back to demonstrating how the NRA supports firearms sales to terrorists and convicted felons.

 

NO THEY DON’T. That shows you how little you pretend you know about secondary gun purchases. You have your little fake news talking point. Aren’t you the least bit embarrassed about pretending to be so poorly informed ? Secondary sellers are not required to have background checks on buyers. Secondary Buyers are NOT required to provide any ID to show they are a citizen. Secondary Buyers aren’t even required to give their name for Pete’s sake. You’re such a neophyte. Almost none of the regulations between ffl dealers and secondary sales gun sellers are the same. A felon is already a felon whether he buys or steals a gun.
Of course, the NRA and you lackies already know this but you still keep promoting your lies so the NRA can continue their criminal activies. You guys support the most ignorant person ever elected to public office.....and you spread lies at the same rate.

 

Please stop using phrases like “ explain such .” No one in their right mind talks this way all the time unless they’re pretending to know more then they do. Your posts are filled with fake news, fabrications and nra talking points.

 

Btw, do you really know the difference between, federal, state and local laws and regulations ? You guys NEVER give any indication. You always go on some tirrate about “ law enforcement..” with no stipulation if its federal, state or local.
It’s funny.

 

Federal laws apply to all firearm sales, secondary or otherwise. If the one attempting to purchase the firearm is a prohibited individual, they are committing a felony and can be prosecuted for such.

Irrelevant. A convicted felon or other prohibited person cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm under any circumstances. It is a felony under all circumstances. A prohibited individual does not even have to have a firearm in their possession to actually be charged with possession of a firearm. Even attempted possession of a firearm is a felony offense.

Then there is no problem to be had with the firearm-related restrictions being as they are.

Prove the existence of these so-called "criminal activities" being referred to by yourself. Demonstrate that they are not fictitious ramblings on the part of yourself.

Donald Trump was not voted for president of the united states, Hillary Clinton was simply voted against. In simple terms he is essentially a placeholder to prevent the space from being filled by something else.

 

The posts presented on the part of yourself are filled with accusations, dishonesty, and utter nonsense about the belief that federal laws simply do not apply.

It is indeed known. Just as it is known that the federal government almost never pursues charges against prohibited individuals who attempt to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers, despite having all of their information filled out on a background check form.

Explain why such actually matters.

 

You actually don’t think it matters that federal laws and regulations are different from state and local laws ?
That is the ultimate of ignorance. No commerce could exist outside of your state without federal laws and regulations. There would be no national defense, no interstate highway system, no delivery system for you to buy guns out of the country.....
Now, it appears you don’t believe in the rights of states and communities to make their own laws and regulations. You’re arguing agasint yourself and not worth the trouble. Moving on.

 

Federal-level firearm-related restrictions apply in all states, no exceptions. Therefore states are devoid of the need to implement their own firearm-related restrictions when it comes to the legal acquisition of firearms.

The fact that such is apparently not known or understood by yourself is quite telling.

Which does not have anything to do with the matter presently being discussed regarding firearm-related restrictions.

States do not have rights. Rights are a legal concept held by the people, and the people exclusively. States have powers and authorities provided to them under the united states constitution, but they are devoid of rights to do anything. Even the tenth amendment of the united states constitution specifies such.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

Moving on......

 

Meaning that an actual, factually-based rebuttal to the above raised points is not possessed on the part of yourself.