Federal Gun laws passed quickly

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just find it strange that firearms and ammo businesses were given the label of 'hi risk'. Like what happened to McMillan Group some time ago. Really? Wow.

It just seems strange to me that those businesses get lumped into the same pile as other businesses, such as payday loan companies, etc.

On the face of it, it seems like someone is targeting those types of businesses.
 
They are high risk. Especially when gangs sell their weapons, or people try to sell stolen weapons.

Hi risk for what? I'm pretty sure gangs don't use lines of credit from Bank of America, and I'm also pretty sure people who sell stolen weapons don't use those services either. It seems that companies like McMillan or other legitimate firearm / ammunition businesses are the only ones affected. I believe that some companies that specialize in accessories were also affected if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure gang bangers aren't too worried about fore grips or quad rails.

And I guess using that logic, we'd better cut the credit and ability to fund ANY business that might deal in products that can be used illegally, like, hmmm, automobiles. I think gangsters use vehicles. At least sometimes. I bet some are even stolen and sold illegally, too. And maybe cell phones, those can be used illegally as well. I'm sure, eventually, we could come up with all manner of things that could be considered 'hi risk'.
 
Last edited:
They are high risk. Especially when gangs sell their weapons, or people try to sell stolen weapons.

What?! :confused:


BTW: I'm still waiting for your reference/citation/evidence that the NRA fear mongers and has been caught in multiple lies. Pls no opinion pieces in the editorial section of the New York Times where people make completely baseless claims with no evidence.
 
What?! :confused:


BTW: I'm still waiting for your reference/citation/evidence that the NRA fear mongers and has been caught in multiple lies. Pls no opinion pieces in the editorial section of the New York Times where people make completely baseless claims with no evidence.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/

We agree with our fact-checking colleagues that the NRA likely derived its false claim from this survey question: “Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?” Nearly 80 percent of respondents answered “no.” The question says nothing about requiring background checks, which would be much different than prohibiting private transfers, period. Hughes told us that there was no intent to refer to background checks without actually mentioning them in that question. “We would have said that,” he said, “if that’s what we were aiming for.”
But the question is similar to what the NRA has said in opposing the legislation on background checks. We asked the NRA’s media office for its support for the ad’s claim, but we have not yet received a response.
The PoliceOne.com survey does include some information on background checks, but nothing that pertains to the NRA claim.
 
A federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms would require a background check for all transfers. Do police not know that?

Not only that, but...how, exactly, does making that statement qualify as fear mongering to drive gun sales? :confused:

Because this is how you started down this road:

The NRA in the past has put out some very uncredible news articles that have been based upon things that were either totally non-verifiable or sketchy at best that were very fear mongering and put people in fear of things that would never happen or very least likely to happen.

However besides that the NRA is a fine organisation, but I don't think it's proper to make people afraid of a million what-ifs.

It's no different than yelling fire in a crowded theater.



I'm by no means an "anti"; while there are very legitimate concerns that involve gun rights being reduced, a lot of people deny there is another extreme side of the spectrum where people spin things such as sketchy news articles or complete untruths to drive paranoia into the minds of people.

It then goes from a legitimate gun rights issue into a conspiracy theory of the tin-foil hat crowd.


While there are a crap load of conspiracy theories, it seems quite a few gun owners believe anything on the internet without taking the time to actually verify or fact check it.

I guess you would call other side of the spectrum across from "antis" as "gun nuts". People who posses extreme paranoia about gun rights and let any phoney blog convince them of things that are complete lies.
 
Background checks do little to stop criminals from obtaining guns, mainly because if they are turned down they can (and do) walk with no further consequences.

What the gun control advocates really want is to have a 4473 form for every transaction, not just those currently sold through FFL dealers. Until that is in place that can't go forward and do what they really want to do.

Anyone who thinks that laws can stop criminals (as well as others), from getting something that's controlled or prohibited, should take a hard look at controlled substances. :uhoh:
 
Anyone who thinks that laws can stop criminals (as well as others), from getting something that's controlled or prohibited, should take a hard look at controlled substances.


I agree with you 1000%. If they banned guns only the thugs and crooks would have them, and it would leave tons of law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves.
 
If they banned guns only the thugs and crooks would have them, and it would leave tons of law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves.

That's the whole problem so far as control advocates see it. They're literally millions of firearms here in the USofA that are not recorded in any records. If any national bans were passed those responsible would likely not survive the next following election.

As matters stand today, they could only confiscate those firearms on which they have a paper trail, and stopping more from being smuggled in would be no more successful then stopping illegal drugs. Wherever they're is a market, with money behind it, criminals will exploit it.
 
That's the whole problem so far as control advocates see it. They're literally millions of firearms here in the USofA that are not recorded in any records. If any national bans were passed those responsible would likely not survive the next following election.

As matters stand today, they could only confiscate those firearms on which they have a paper trail, and stopping more from being smuggled in would be no more successful then stopping illegal drugs. Wherever they're is a market, with money behind it, criminals will exploit it.


Being an old geezer most of my guns have no paper trail.
 
They are high risk. Especially when gangs sell their weapons, or people try to sell stolen weapons.
Wait a minute, hang on just a second. Then you seem to be implying that Jerry of Jerry's Gun Shop, the retired county deputy and honorably discharged veteran and once county trustee is buying and selling stolen weapons from gang bangers? If you have evidence to support this it needs to be turned over to the federal authorities immediately. If not, you have just libeled a very very good man that doesn't deserve it.
 
The problem with having no paper trail is that technology exists, and has for quite some time, where people could map out the inside of your home with quite some degree, even to the point of furniture placement. So, if one really wanted to know what you own there are plenty of ways to find out and most are much less exotic than I just mentioned. That is unless they were bought 50 years ago, are not in your home, buried in the hills and you never use them, ever.
 
Color me surprised that .30-06 has not responded to several of the questions in this thread asking him to back up his statements.
I suspect young hubris may be at play here.
 
Last edited:
While I like some aspects of the NRA, the gun-grabbing side of things if nothing but fear mongering in order to get people to buy more guns.

Numerous politicians have over the years regulated guns in such ways as automatic weapons bans, or magazine limits.

But there is no evidence, none, other than malarkey published on questionable news blogs that our President is going to plain out take away guns.

Won't happen. I've been hearing "Obama is gunna git yer guns!" for over 6 years now. I'll believe it when I see it. Quite frankly it's a load of crap.
Dude, I lived under the 1994 "assault weapon" fraud, and there are plenty of legislators who would like to do something much, much worse than that. Are you seriously saying that no one, nationwide, is trying to ban AR's or over-10-round magazines anymore? Are you aware of the firearms restrictions in California, or the ones that were recently passed in New York, Connecticut, and Colorado, or the transfer ban passed in the state of Washington?

A gun ban doesn't have to ban *all* guns to be a ban, any more than a book ban has to ban *all* books to be a ban on books. There are plenty of legislators who would like nothing better than to outlaw AR's, or all rifles with protruding handgrips, or all guns over 10 rounds, or all guns that don't have an electronic interlock. Do I need to provide names and bill numbers?
 
Hold on now, don't forget that after they passed the 'assault weapons' ban in 1994 the Brady bunch was quoted as saying that this is, "only the beginning" and then started with their 'sniper rifle' argument.
 
Link from thirty-ought-six:

You do realize that FactCheck.org is itself a biased source don't you?
http://thelibertyprofessor.com/tag/annenberg-public-policy-foundation-bias/. Even a casual read of the site reveals that FactCheck is much more likely to challenge statements made by the political right than the political left.

FactCheck bias is evident in the link you provided as well:

Both before and after the Senate vote on the background check measure, the NRA distorted what the proposed legislation would do to gun sales and transfers between friends or family members........

But the measure only called for expanding background checks for sales by unlicensed individuals at gun shows and online. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of the sponsors of the background check legislation, criticized the NRA for telling people that it would criminalize private transfers. Manchin, who received an A rating from the NRA last year, told MSNBC that the NRA’s claim “is a lie.” He added, “I would hope they would correct that.”
The bill — the “Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act,” which Manchin introduced with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey — would have prohibited unlicensed persons from selling guns at gun shows or over the Internet......
An NRA member, Manchin said on the Senate floor before the vote that the NRA’s alerts on his legislation were “filled with misinformation.” He said the measure extends background checks to commercial sales at gun shows and online. “Private sales will not require background checks.
Manchin explained: “You can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements. Or you can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check. ”

Commercial sales at gun shows and on-line are already regulated, you must have a FFL and conduct a background check. If a guy brings a gun to a gun show to sell or arranges for a face to face sale over the internet (really no different than posting it on a "cork bulletin board") they are PRIVATE SALES. So either the bill DOES in fact prohibit some private sales, or it only affects sales which already require background checks in which case the sponsors are not being honest about the checks being expanded. Why doesn't "FactCheck" point out this inconsistancy?

The NRA sometimes uses hyperbole to rally its members, but when it comes to basic facts and truthfulness on the issue, they have their opponents beat hands down.
 
L

Commercial sales at gun shows and on-line are already regulated, you must have a FFL and conduct a background check.

Although very few people do it (and I have yet to see anybody claim it has any impact on violent crime at all), there is no federal law against shipping a firearm (long gun at least) to another person without an FFL or background check (same state of course).

Just for the sake of complete correctness.
 
If you call a few misleading articles or opinions given by the NRA 'fear-mongering" then what, exactly, do you call the misleading articles or opinions given by MDA or other Bloomberg financed activist groups? We're still waiting for you to cite an actual credible source regarding the 'fear-mongering' of the NRA.

How about the NRA's own publications as proof of NRA fear-mongering?

Example: The NRA's February 2015 issue of American Hunter

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ah_201502/index.php?startid=2#/0

Cover Story: The ruin Obama may leave behind. Are you prepared for the most dangerous 700 days America has ever faced?

Really? Now is the most dangerous time American as ever faced? Even if limiting discussion the topic of gun control, today is not the most dangerous time for America's gun owners. Is today more dangerous that when Obama first took office and Democrats controlled both housed of Congress? Today Republicans control both houses of Congress. Even before the current election the GOP controlled the House and had the ability to block any gun measure they didn't like.

The NRA scored a major victory but they still can't seem to dial back the fear. This is what turns off more moderate people from the NRA.
 
Last edited:
Although very few people do it (and I have yet to see anybody claim it has any impact on violent crime at all), there is no federal law against shipping a firearm (long gun at least) to another person without an FFL or background check (same state of course).

Just for the sake of complete correctness.

But that would still be a private sale. Referring to someone making commercial sales would indicate they are "engaged in the business" (in BATFE speak) and would therefore need a FFL.
 
Really? Now is the most dangerous time American as ever faced? Even if limiting discussion the topic of gun control, today is not the most dangerous time for America's gun owners. Is today more dangerous that when Obama first took office and Democrats controlled both housed of Congress? Today Republicans control both houses of Congress. Even before the current election the GOP controlled the House and had the ability to block any gun measure they didn't like.

The NRA scored a major victory but they still can't seem to dial back the fear. This is what turns off more moderate people from the NRA.

Well, yeah, they do seem to claim that every election is the most important/dangerous ever. You have to take it all with a grain of salt. I would prefer them to be over enthusiastic than complacent. Had they not rallied the troops, the recent universal background check bill might have passed. Voters need to keep constant pressure on their elected officials to do the right thing.
 
Well, yeah, they do seem to claim that every election is the most important/dangerous ever. You have to take it all with a grain of salt. I would prefer them to be over enthusiastic than complacent. Had they not rallied the troops, the recent universal background check bill might have passed. Voters need to keep constant pressure on their elected officials to do the right thing.

The most recent universal background check bill never had a chance of becoming law. The NRA's victory was defeating it in the Senate and making Obama and the Democrats look bad. A companion bill never even came up for a vote in the House.

The NRA needs to read "The Boy Who Called Wolf" and take the message to heart.
 
How about the NRA's own publications as proof of NRA fear-mongering?

Example: The NRA's February 2015 issue of American Hunter

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ah_201502/index.php?startid=2#/0

Cover Story: The ruin Obama may leave behind. Are you prepared for the most dangerous 700 days America has ever faced?

Really? Now is the most dangerous time American as ever faced? Even if limiting discussion the topic of gun control, today is not the most dangerous time for America's gun owners. Is today more dangerous that when Obama first took office and Democrats controlled both housed of Congress? Today Republicans control both houses of Congress. Even before the current election the GOP controlled the House and had the ability to block any gun measure they didn't like.

The NRA scored a major victory but they still can't seem to dial back the fear. This is what turns off more moderate people from the NRA.

Did you live under a rock for Dec 2012 - late spring 2013?

Did you see what was being proposed in the legislature, and hear what Obama called for and urged Congress to pass so that he could sign it?
 
I know and that shouldn't be allowed. Like the time a couple years ago they tried to get a 10 round magazine limit attached to an internet privacy Bill. :mad:
Did you also complain when Federal Park carry was slipped into the credit card regulation bill 0bama wanted and signed?
 
Did you live under a rock for Dec 2012 - late spring 2013?

Did you see what was being proposed in the legislature, and hear what Obama called for and urged Congress to pass so that he could sign it?

No, I don't live under a rock. Yes, I did see what was proposed. I expected the background check and magazine restrictions to pass the Senate and die in the House. Turns out they didn't even make it out of the Democrat controlled Senate.

Which brings me back to my point. Considering that the Senate couldn't pass a background check bill when it was controlled by Democrats, what do you think the chance of one passing now that it is controlled by Republicans? How are we in "the most dangerous 700 days America has ever faced?" So according to the NRA, the Republicans taking control of the Senate made the political environment worse. Taking the House must have been bad too because today is even worst than back when Democrats controlled the Presidency, Senate and House. Either that or they are still trying to sell their message using fear.

Another question. Do you think the NRA printing: "The ruin Obama may leave behind. Are you prepared for the most dangerous 700 days America has ever faced?" on the cover of American Hunter helps or hurts the ammo shortage problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top