Democrats want to have us purchase a firearm / ammo license

[rob-c]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text
 

But Trump is so evil... 

[Buckmaster7600]

Chef supports this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ATbuckhunter]

1 hour ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Chef supports this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He hates trump, but he wouldnt support this

[Culvercreek hunt club]

"come march, learn to shoot, train and die for the Country at 18 carrying a gun we give you"   but you can't buy one for yourself until 21.

[Buckmaster7600]

He hates trump, but he wouldnt support this

If he votes for Biden he supports this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ATbuckhunter]

2 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

If he votes for Biden he supports this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if you vote for trump you support everything he says and does too? Be fair here

[rob-c]

36 minutes ago, ATbuckhunter said:

So if you vote for trump you support everything he says and does too? Be fair here

No, but if one owns’s and shoots guns you would think it would be at the top of the list of reasons to not vote Democratic. 
Some  drink the kool-aid and  they can’t see the forest through the trees. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by rob-c

[airedale]

Something similar has already been started in Democrat led California

As of April 25th of 2020, you must meet the following criteria to purchase ammunition in California:

Be a current resident of California

Pass “Eligibility Check” aka Background check

Be 21 years of age or older to purchase handgun ammunition

Be 18 years of age or older to purchase rifle or shotgun ammunition

On July 1st of 2019 phase 2 of Proposition 63 began and applied to gun stores and gun shows throughout the state. At this point ammunition sales now require a $1 fee (paid by you of course) for a point-of-sale background check, or eligibility check as the DOJ calls it.

No ammo can be purchased through mail or other shippers from out of state nor can one go out of state to buy ammo. Also hunting with traditional ammo that contains lead has been banned,

Hunting licenses sold annually in California has fallen 70 percent — from 764,000 in 1970 to 225,000 in 2019, even as the state’s population has doubled, easy to see why! "DEMOCRATS"

As the saying goes "Elections have consequences!" 

"

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by airedale

[Buckmaster7600]

So if you vote for trump you support everything he says and does too? Be fair here

Like it or not yes, when you vote for someone your supporting their policies. You may not like them but you’re supporting them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[virgil]

40 minutes ago, rob-c said:

No, but if one owns’s and shoots guns you would think it would be at the top of the list of reasons to not vote Democratic. 
Some  drink the kool-aid and  they can’t see the forest through the trees. 

Not everyone is a single-issue voter.  For example, it's possible for a person to be a gun owner and to also be pro-choice.  In cases like that, the voter has to make choices.  For many, they choose a side and fall in line with all of a party's platform points.  For others, it's not so simple.

[rob-c]

18 minutes ago, virgil said:

Not everyone is a single-issue voter.  For example, it's possible for a person to be a gun owner and to also be pro-choice.  In cases like that, the voter has to make choices.  For many, they choose a side and fall in line with all of a party's platform points.  For others, it's not so simple.

I did not say it was a single issue, I said you would think it would be at the top of the list of reasons. 

[ADK Native]

Just another "gun control" measure by politicians who want to disarm law abiding citizens..

Politicians who support this type of nonsense "gun control" are unwilling or unable to really legislate actions to reduce or eliminate the causes that create violent people.

  

[ATbuckhunter]

9 hours ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Like it or not yes, when you vote for someone your supporting their policies. You may not like them but you’re supporting them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can see what you're saying, but I respectfuly disagree

[Steve D]

I doubt this particular bill will go to far since it was introduced by a republican but it is still upsetting that any of our politicians are thinking this way rather than addressing crimes committed with illegal guns.

Sponsor:	Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] (Introduced 01/30/2020)

[virgil]

5 minutes ago, Steve D said:

I doubt this particular bill will go to far since it was introduced by a republican but it is still upsetting that any of our politicians are thinking this way rather than addressing crimes committed with illegal guns.

Sponsor:	Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] (Introduced 01/30/2020)

Johnson is a Democrat, no?

[Steve D]

3 minutes ago, virgil said:

Johnson is a Democrat, no?

I guess he is indeed. I thought the "Rep" designation was for republican but it must be for representative.

Either way I can't believe the emphasis is on more restrictions when the issue should be crimes/shootings with illegal guns and illegal possession.

 Maybe stop & frisk was not such a bad idea. If one is checked and is in possession legally he or she goes their merry way. If they are not legal it's off to the pokey they go.

[rob-c]

1 minute ago, Steve D said:

I guess he is indeed. I thought the "Rep" designation was for republican but it must be for representative.

Either way I can't believe the emphasis is on more restrictions when the issue should be crimes/shootings with illegal guns and illegal possession.

 Maybe stop & frisk was not such a bad idea. If one is checked and is in possession legally he or she goes their merry way. If they are not legal it's off to the pokey they go.

No No no , that makes sense.

[airedale]

17 minutes ago, rob-c said:

Maybe stop & frisk was not such a bad idea.

Piling on more useless laws or banning certain classes of firearms has proven not to be the answer time and time again, the current laws are grossly non enforced, unless of course you are upstanding citizens like the ST Louis couple defending their property and made an example of as part of a publicity stunt.

Cities with the most restrictive stringent of gun laws are ones that shootings are rampant in and getting worse. The illegal guns must be taken off the streets for it to stop. If there was ever a common sense approach to illegal guns stop and frisk is it, the penalty for having an illegal gun should be severe and shooting someone with an illegal gun a lot more severe the, lock the scum up and throw away the key, I have zero sympathy for these thugs. The only ones that have anything to fear about stop and frisk are those that are up to no good.

Al