Gun Control Bill Headed To The Senate

[rachunter]

SO if they took the route of say Australia and their gun control you would just comply? Could you demonstrate a "genuine need" like they have to there? How about any multiple shot firearm? comply? Hell since Australia is so far away let's just look at our ally of Great Britain. would you just "comply" if their system was adopted? How far would be too far for you? 

Well what would you want me to do shoot it out with law enforcement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

26 minutes ago, rachunter said:

Well what would you want me to do shoot it out with law enforcement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really don't have any expectations. I'm just asking at what point you feel that enough is enough. The answer may be it never will be and you are willing to give up the right entirely if they say to. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

57 minutes ago, Belo said:

exactly what you know it to be, but i'll bite on your bait regardless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole#:~:text=Gun show loophole is a,background check of the buyer.

For private sales, any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the same state as long as they do not know or do not have reasonable cause to believe the purchaser is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law

https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download

 

I am just not a fan of perpetuating a falsehood or the left's name games. It has NOTHING to do with gun shows but they know it will come under much greater criticism if they say what they actually want to do. Ban private sales without background check.  (like NY's safe act did).  I find it odd that the left will say that having a voter ID card is too onerous and disproportionally targets and impacts the poor but they have no issue requiring the FFL transfer fees to sell a gun. Seems like that would have impact on the same groups.   

[Five Seasons]

14 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I am just not a fan of perpetuating a falsehood or the left's name games. It has NOTHING to do with gun shows but they know it will come under much greater criticism if they say what they actually want to do. Ban private sales without background check.  (like NY's safe act did).  I find it odd that the left will say that having a voter ID card is too onerous and disproportionally targets and impacts the poor but they have no issue requiring the FFL transfer fees to sell a gun. Seems like that would have impact on the same groups.   

we're on the same page there for sure

[Culvercreek hunt club]

6 minutes ago, Belo said:

we're on the same page there for sure

That term is a pet peeve of mine. THEY make it sound like dealers can just hand guns over the table for cash at "gun shows"

[rachunter]

I really don't have any expectations. I'm just asking at what point you feel that enough is enough. The answer may be it never will be and you are willing to give up the right entirely if they say to. 

It was enough for me when they in acted the safe act eight years ago. I did what I could back then and it still here with more on the way.
If your asking would I die supporting the second amendment the answer I doubt it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Five Seasons]

26 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

That term is a pet peeve of mine. THEY make it sound like dealers can just hand guns over the table for cash at "gun shows"

that's fair and I don't disagree. I just used the term for ease of use. You're right though in that it's misleading. 

On a side note, I do owe some of my 30 rd mags and cool ass knives that I've since lost to those shows. Wish I bought a boat that didn't sink instead... 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

47 minutes ago, rachunter said:

It was enough for me when they in acted the safe act eight years ago. I did what I could back then and it still here with more on the way.
If your asking would I die supporting the second amendment the answer I doubt it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand and my comments weren't personal or judging. I just like to gauge where people stand. I am sure we all have different tolerance levels. I am sure there would be some point where that it would be worth it for you. On the same coin but a different side though I also don't like to see those that have a far less tolerance level rerated either. Personally I think it will come to armed conflict in tis country. It might be far down the road but it has to come. There is no way we can maintain the "everything for free" culture. It isn't sustainable and when those that have come to expect and depend on the handouts lose them, I think it will the their side that draws the blood. That will not bare out well for them becasue of the amount of arms on the other side.  I believe that is the real crux behind the lefts disdain for guns. It isn't about the gun violence. 

[Steve D]

2 hours ago, rachunter said:

It was enough for me when they in acted the safe act eight years ago. I did what I could back then and it still here with more on the way.
If your asking would I die supporting the second amendment the answer I doubt it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depending on the circumstances I think I would. It isn't much different than someone walking in and saying they are taking your house, your car, or some other possession you value deeply and have worked for. 

There has to be a line they (the government) can not cross. Each person has to decide where that line is drawn and when to take a stand.

[Shoots100]

2 hours ago, rachunter said:

It was enough for me when they in acted the safe act eight years ago. I did what I could back then and it still here with more on the way.
If your asking would I die supporting the second amendment the answer I doubt it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After the recent no knock Fed apprehension in Florida of a DC rioter and the concurrent total lockdown of said rioter bank and family accounts, I afraid we may find out the answer to that question pretty soon.

There are people waiting for this to happen in a larger scale before they take action and if that happens, it's not going to be pretty, as they would take the fight to them and not wait for a knock at the door.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Shoots100

[rachunter]

I would hate to have to pick a side and fight against my fellow countrymen,but i guess it would be with a heavy heart that i would side with those standing up for our constitutional rights.

We couldn't even come together during a pandemic which is very sad.

[Five Seasons]

15 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I understand and my comments weren't personal or judging. I just like to gauge where people stand. I am sure we all have different tolerance levels. I am sure there would be some point where that it would be worth it for you. On the same coin but a different side though I also don't like to see those that have a far less tolerance level rerated either. Personally I think it will come to armed conflict in tis country. It might be far down the road but it has to come. There is no way we can maintain the "everything for free" culture. It isn't sustainable and when those that have come to expect and depend on the handouts lose them, I think it will the their side that draws the blood. That will not bare out well for them becasue of the amount of arms on the other side.  I believe that is the real crux behind the lefts disdain for guns. It isn't about the gun violence. 

Sadly I think you're right. And many of the puppet master realize this. That's why you see popular culture cancel everything slightly offensive to a demographic out of the left side of their mouth, while simultaneously shaming the hunter, redneck, gun owner, country boy on the right. I love to call this double standard out when I see it. 

"we are the party of tolerance"

sees picture of a guy who legally killed a black bear

"I hope you and your family die"

So they continue to perpetuate that living a simple life with your family, living off the land and owning some guns and a bible is evil and bad. However living in an urban slum with your Koran is not to be joked at or looked down upon. And honestly the end goal is that the number of us country boys with guns dwindles. It's not going to be us that go out, we don't care how they think or feel about us, but it may be our kids kids. More videogames, more reliance on tech and less of a need to learn to fish, hunt and garden. So no longer a need for a gun till it dwindles. 

Do the best to raise your kids and grandkids right. If the pandemic taught us anything, it's that you could lose your food source just like that.

[Just Lucky]

This bill is gonna pass, along with others unfortunately.I don't think anything we can do will stop the Democrats.  They are more organized.

So what can we do to stop them?  And please don't tell me about becoming part of the nra, that isn't  working. 

[boo711]

15 minutes ago, Just Lucky said:

This bill is gonna pass, along with others unfortunately.I don't think anything we can do will stop the Democrats.  They are more organized.

So what can we do to stop them?  And please don't tell me about becoming part of the nra, that isn't  working. 

I read that this would need to pass in the Senate with at least 60 votes.  That would mean 10 Republicans would need to vote for it.  I hope that there are not 10 of them that would go for it.  I have sent emails to some of them from other states.  They can not email me back because I am not in there state but at least they can read it.  Hopefully others from there states have been sending emails as well.  Other than that I am not sure what we can do.  I have not read anything favorable about any of the gun rights organizations that are out there now so they are not going to be getting any of my money at this time.

[Grouse]

60 votes are only needed to stop a filibuster, which Republicans will do.  That's why the left wants to eliminate the filibuster.  Otherwise 51 votes makes it law.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Grouse

[squirrelwhisperer]

Well that didn't take long...im talking about the dems beginning to strip us of our freedoms. Where are all the Biden supporters who said this would never happen? 

I hope you all realize there is no stopping them. They can do whatever they want. They stole the presidency. Need I say more?

Edited March 16, 2021 by squirrelwhisperer

[Five Seasons]

21 hours ago, squirrelwhisperer said:

Well that didn't take long...im talking about the dems beginning to strip us of our freedoms. Where are all the Biden supporters who said this would never happen? 

I hope you all realize there is no stopping them. They can do whatever they want. They stole the presidency. Need I say more?

playing devils advocate here. What freedoms does this law strip you of?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

57 minutes ago, Belo said:

playing devils advocate here. What freedoms does this law strip you of?

Technically for us in NY.....nothing....since Cuomo already singed into law an extension of this to 30 days. 

[squirrelwhisperer]

1 hour ago, Belo said:

playing devils advocate here. What freedoms does this law strip you of?

You are smart enough to know this is only the beginning. No need to start trolling. 

 

[Five Seasons]

26 minutes ago, squirrelwhisperer said:

You are smart enough to know this is only the beginning. No need to start trolling. 

 

I wasn't trolling. I'm on your side. But I also think our best defense is a well informed argument. You may very well have this conversation with someone in the near future who is on the other side. What is your defense to the question?

It can't be "it's just the beginning and I'm afraid of the future." You immediately lose any credibility. 

[Grouse]

It seems that our polished politicians in Washington have forgotten their oaths to protect and preserve our Constitution. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” In 2021, the left envisions a world in which “all shall be debarred the use of arms; no man shall be free.”

This is about creating a gun registry to track guns of the American people. There is no way to implement what the Democrats are trying to implement without doing that.

It’s easy to be sucked into the D.C. bubble.  Many on the left seem to think that their narrow viewpoint is representative of the majority of Americans, but outside this bubble, in real America, those that respect the Constitution will never let anyone take away our right to bear arms.

Despite overwhelming evidence that gun ownership decreases crime and saves lives, leftists want you to believe that law-abiding citizens are the problem. The left wants you to believe that those who follow the law are somehow less trustworthy than those who break the law.  It’s time that we understood the left’s stance for what it is: an effort to remove every single firearm from the hands of Americans nationwide.

 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

disarm law-abiding while playing catch and release with convicted criminals.....what could possibly go wrong?

[Grouse]

Representative Ben Cline (R-VA) argued that all the Democrats' bills would accomplish is to make Second Amendment rights harder for Americans to access while doing nothing to address crime. "I will not stand by and allow our rights to be stripped away," Cline said. "My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that these bills will save lives. However, nothing in them would have stopped any of the recent mass casualty shootings that have occurred in our country. Rather than go after criminals who break the law, Democrats want to create a false narrative that will criminalize private gun ownership. Democrats will tell you that these bills close loopholes. But the loophole they believe exists is that law-abiding Americans are even able to own guns in the first place."

[Grouse]

"Want to see some serious racism? Study the history of how gun control laws have been used." —Congressman Burgess Owens

[Northcountryman]

47 minutes ago, Belo said:

I wasn't trolling. I'm on your side. But I also think our best defense is a well informed argument. You may very well have this conversation with someone in the near future who is on the other side. What is your defense to the question?

It can't be "it's just the beginning and I'm afraid of the future." You immediately lose any credibility. 

Well , this is an informal discussion among Like minded ( well mostly anyway) individuals , but I agree with you . Arguments can and should be passionate and thought provoking , but also cogent . If you had to argue against the passage of this bill then, what would you say in your argument ?