That's another Bu---hit claim and you know it. All firearms dealers have to preform a background check whether at a gun show or anywhere else. Private individuals do not have to just like they do not have to anywhere else. Gun shows have been proven to be one of the last places criminals get their weapons. The liberals like the subject because it shows they are trying to do something knowing full well it will do little or nothing to stop crime. The NRA fights it because as long as the liberals are tied up with it they aren't trying to pass more restrictive laws. You really are a spin doctor aren't you.

If the NRA had such a ridgid stand on gun control laws explain how we came to have between 22,000 and 24,000 gun control laws on the books at the present time. I wonder if you know the difference between reasonable and excessive. Apparently your liberal friends don't. They spin every newly dreamed up roadblock to our rights as reasonable. Your man Obama has said the federal mandatory law to put armed and violent predators behind bars should be abolished. He also opposes the right to carry law. He also supported D.C.'s total ban on handguns in the home for self defense. Lets see your spin on those items.

If you read back through all your posts over the last year You will have a hard time denying the label. We agree on one thing ---It's time to stop for today. I have another friend who wants to chase birdies tomorrow and 3:30 am isn't that far away. Have a nice night

we should support laws that make it easier to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands

I am not aware of ONE SINGLE law on the books now that prevents guns from getting into the wrong hands.. NOT ONE.....

Back grounds checks is a great one ... for example..... a normal person would think that that would.. for example.. prevent a felon from getting a gun.. but guess what... that law does not stop one single felon from getting a gun.... they buy them from indiviuals or the "black market" or on the street corner in Philly or PGH....

Even at a gun show if they attend and win they get a buddy to register the gun... then it's reported stolen.... it's that simple....

Name me ONE law that does prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people.. there is NONE and NEVER will be....

I'll keep my guns to help protect me from all those criminals..


I mentioned Obama only because he is NOT a pro gun person---
 
" a six-shooter" for ducks " ..... Come on now....
 
Anyhow... yes I agree the Prez can not do alot by himself... but each state can do what they want too....  and the anti-gun folks in Pa are really hell bent on changing gun laws at the expense of law-biding folks....
 
and that's why I say we better not "give an inch"
 
and pointing that out is not trying to use fear....
 
because I too have to say that the NRA does go all out AT TIMES with the fear factor.....

Right on MM.The NRA is one of the only reasons(besides our independent thinking)we in this country don't have the restrictions Australia or the UK have.They let the "antis" get their ears and tried to compromise,only to lose a bunch of their gun bearing laws.Criminals will get guns anyway they can regardless of the law,that's why they are CRIMINALS.You guys on here are hypothesizing back and forth like it is a political science course in college.Be happy you have the right to go hunting(give thanks for the NRA),have and carry a CCW,and have so much public land to hunt in this state.Most states don't have half the public hunting opportunities we do.A large faction of the US doesn't approve or like what we do and is being taught from K-12 that hunting and guns are wrong,even my 6 year old daughter asks why I try to kill Bambi.And the stuff about carrying a handgun for archery is a stretch,but I was a teenager and 3 loose Rottweilers came upon me after chasing a doe almost to exhaustion.I almost shot the one with an arrow since he was 10 yards and growling like he was going to come at me.If I had a handgun,I would have shot it no doubt.Don't care if you don't like it,the owner shouldn't let their agressive dogs loose and no I wouldn't have reported it,just left it.Wonder how many deer they ran to exhaustion?What if they had come across children playing in a backyard?You don't care about that though,you only worry about the feelings of our fellow Americans who don't do or approve of the things you enjoy.

Yes,the NRA wants people to be able to shoot an elk with a semi auto sniper rifle that is some ridiculous caliber that will blast a hole in it like a coffee can,so what.Clean kill,less meat and less tracking(too violent for you?).They only push the envelope to the far side because of the intense pressure from antis.

I'm sure you'll have a BS college response about how I'm part of the problem,keep hugging that ecstasy taking girlfriend of yours who got your ear.**** is a powerful thing,but don't let it control your thoughts or your heart.

And Spoon,this is not directed at you.You seem like a nice older fella who has his opinion and that's fine.I felt that way too until I got a job in the law enforcement area and saw how criminals have no qualms or limits on acquiring weapons to do harm to good citizens like yourself.This is for SilverKype and the other guy,both filabusterers who are astonished at their own bullcrap.And Drake,how many deer do you think will be killed with a handgun in archery season if hunters carry one?How accurate is a handgun over 30 yards?How hard is it to take a deer to a butcher(if the hunter doesn't do it himself)and hide a bullet hole by sticking an arrow in it?

I didn't fall off the horse, I CHOSE to get off a horse that was running wildly.
 
Your position, and that of the S-10, and the Dr. may seem totally rational to yourselves, and each other. They may be, (I) won't presume to know how extreme they are, or aren't. The postions of the anti's seem eqully rational to THEM. How extreme either side becomes, determines how rational they appear to those in the middle, which most legislation takes to pass.
 
As a gun owner, AND as a citizen concerned with keeping our streets safe, and making the job of law enforcement easier, and safer. I can ignore the extremes of both sides, and look at the agrguement objectively. I can acknowledge that SOME laws are needed, while some, even many are just bad law.
 
The law discussed at the beginning of the thread may just be one of those bad laws, I never said I supported it. My response was that I do not understand why a "law abiding" citizen, would not report a stolen handgun, or any weapon for that matter. Even without this law, and the fear of prosecution for not reporting it, having THEIR weapon on the streets, and outside of their control, places THEM in some degree of jeopardy. It could be minimal ( could be severe ), but why would one WANT to take that risk.
 
I am also not totally against the NRA. Many/most of their positions are valid, but as any organization  ( let's include PETA, and the ASPCA, on the other side ) grows in power, so does their extremist fringe. Those on the outside often find it difficult to look beyond the extreme, and take the valid seriously. THIS is the concern I'm trying to express.

"2 years and 3 months to the day of his sentencing, he was free on Parole.

Do you suppose it was because of a "Loophole created by the NRA".
Get a friggin Life!!!! "

 
 
Musky,
 
There are no doubt flaws THROUGHOUT the legal system. When one considers the the U.S, ( the "free-est nation in the world ) incarcerates more people per-capita, than ANY other nation, it would suggest that cases such as the one above tend to be the exception, rather than the norm.
 
The majority of gun legislation has the SUPPORT of law enforcement organizations ( generally not bastians of liberalism ). Their arguement often, is that flaws in current laws, make them difficult to enforce, or that specific types of weapons, or ammunition put THEM at risk.
 
There is also no doubt, that many of our current laws are redundant, or just plain bad law. WE, can either work within the system to create sensible law, or continue to get BAD law. This ( like it, or not ), is the choice we have, and the point I'm trying to get across.
 

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker


I am not aware of one law, not ONE, which prevents you as a law abiding citizen from owning weapons, as I'm sure you do.

 
How about the the case before the supreme court about the District of Columbia banning the ownership of handguns by law abiding citizens.  One of the highest crimes rates in the nation and citizens do not have the right to protect themselves.
 
Get educated my man or you will wake up some day and wonder what has happened.
 
Look into left California while you are at it.

I just ask that you educate yourself on the current guns laws that exist and some of the proposed legislation that is out there if you fully support gun rights as most on hear say they do.
 
To say that me must meet in the middle, even with all of the current laws that exist, shows naivity on this subject.  Again, only if you fully support gun rights.
 
There are extremists on both sides, I will admit, but current laws work if enforced.  New laws will do nothing more to keep firerams from criminals.  It will only restict our rights further.

"How about the the case before the supreme court about the District of Columbia banning the ownership of handguns by law abiding citizens."
 
This is the case, or TYPE of case BOTH sides have tried to avoid. It will, or should set a clear precedent as to whether the right to bear arms, is a collective right, or an individual right. One side, or the other will come out the clear loser. The court has always tried to skirt the issue, and neither side has wanted to push them on it. I don't think they will be able to in this case. While I disagree with the opions of some of the courts more conservative members, this is one case in which a conservative leaning court gives advantage to my interests.

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

"the Dems will most likely make more gains in the House and the Senate and if the sitting president is also a Dem., you can kiss many of our firearm rights goodbye to "common sense" legislation, as they put it."

You make the incorrect assumption, that ALL Democrats are anti gun. Simply is not the case,

 
He is implying that the Dems will hold a majority and push athrough anti-gun agenda.  He is not saying all dems are anti-gun.
 
Most will lean that way when pushed from party insiders though.  He is right.  Look out. 

No one needs to own an automatic weapon of any kind, lets face that.. The ban on those guns isn't meant to take them out of the hands of regular people its an attempt to make law enforcement officers as safe as possible on the job. Try looking at it from that side once. The same reason deer wish the goverment would ban my rocket 100 grains.
 
btw I own 5 guns probably six by hunting season, and my presidential vote will not be the least bit affected by my worrying about the abilty to keep them, or to purchase news ones in the future. Niether should any other rational person.

ORIGINAL: CATMAN610

No one needs to own an automatic weapon of any kind, lets face that.. The ban on those guns isn't meant to take them out of the hands of regular people its an attempt to make law enforcement officers as safe as possible on the job. Try looking at it from that side once.

 
Are you referring to the "assault weapon" ban?  If you are, my my you have alot to learn my friend.
 
The "assault weapon" ban includes some shotguns, deer rifles, pistols, etc..........  All used for legitimate sporting uses and target competitions.
 
And, by the way, none are "automatic".
 
If you are not referring to that ban, pardon me.
 
 

ORIGINAL: CATMAN610

my presidential vote will not be the least bit affected by my worrying about the abilty to keep them, or to purchase news ones in the future. Niether should any other rational person.

 
A rationale person should evaluate all that they find important to them and make the decision they feel is best. 
 
If someone finds gun rights important to them it is rationale to consider that factor.
 
It is unrationale for someone not to consider what is important to them.

Catman-- go to Australia, or Great Britain, just to name a couple and ask them what happens when you allow liberal politicans to pass reasonable gun laws. The liberal Dems want us to be part of the United Nations attempt to disarm the worlds population. Ask the Jews that survived the holocast if giving up their guns to Hitler was a good idea. Do yourself a favor and read the history of oppression and how it starts.