Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2016, 06:00:45 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/david-petraeus-mark-kelly-gun-control/index.html
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2016, 08:43:54 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 13, 2016, 08:50:00 AM
Curtis
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2016, 09:01:52 AM
Post by: Bill W on June 13, 2016, 09:34:02 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 13, 2016, 09:36:06 AM
The only time i have a problem with background checks is when law abiding people are erroneously flagged and the lengthy process it takes to rectify that. It happens more often than you might think. Registry is out of the question. AR ban is out of the question. Magazine limits, out of the question.
:tup:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on June 13, 2016, 10:09:28 AM
send Kelly back up in space!
Send them both to Mars on a one way ticket. :twocents:
Post by: bearmanric on June 13, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
Post by: kentrek on June 13, 2016, 10:44:37 AM
It's disgusting and isis will take full advantage of it...this will happen again...regardless of any new laws
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2016, 12:04:26 PM
Traitors.
I wouldn't go that far. Both served in combat. That means a lot. It just doesn't give them a right to turn their backs on our people and the Constitution.
Post by: csaaphill on June 13, 2016, 01:46:55 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2016, 08:27:08 PM
Not really. Service does not make one so entitled as to restrict RIGHTS of American citizens. There is no way I am going to bend over just because a couple of Liberals decided to betray the Constitution because the Clinton/Bloomberg money is just to good. That uniform and Kelly's wife's slurred speech gets no sympathy from me. Screw them, screw anti-gun, and screw anyone who supports them.Traitors.
I wouldn't go that far. Both served in combat. That means a lot. It just doesn't give them a right to turn their backs on our people and the Constitution.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2016, 09:34:55 PM
Post by: csaaphill on June 13, 2016, 09:42:32 PM
Traitors.:yeah:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2016, 10:49:19 PM
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: timberfaller on June 14, 2016, 07:18:47 AM
So did Benedick Arnold! Look at how he was treated! :yike:
Yep, in simple terms, Traitor's to their Oath
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 07:41:51 AM
I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.
trai·tor
ˈtrādər/
noun
noun: traitor; plural noun: traitors
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 14, 2016, 07:43:10 AM
I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.:yeah:
And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons. You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.
I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms. I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!").
Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors. I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun. I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 07:53:34 AM
I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.:yeah:
And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons. You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.
I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms. I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!").
Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors. I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun. I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.
Do you assume the rules for who passes and who doesn't won't change?
The hard part is the guy legally bought the gun even though he was on a terror watch list at one point. If you want to keep guns away from that guy, there are only two real choices - no guns for anyone or add guys to the don't buy list that are under suspicion. That means let the government curtail your rights without judicial action. They could put you on the list because they think you are a bad guy.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 14, 2016, 07:56:29 AM
I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.:yeah:
And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons. You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.
I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms. I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!").
Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors. I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun. I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.
Do you assume the rules for who passes and who doesn't won't change?
The hard part is the guy legally bought the gun even though he was on a terror watch list at one point. If you want to keep guns away from that guy, there are only two real choices - no guns for anyone or add guys to the don't buy list that are under suspicion. That means let the government curtail your rights without judicial action. They could put you on the list because they think you are a bad guy.
He also beat his wife. Had she turned him in, he would have been a felon who never would have been able to legally buy the guns.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2016, 10:06:06 AM
I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.:yeah:
And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons. You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.
I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms. I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!").
Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors. I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun. I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.
I would like to see a faster process for being removed from the no-fly list or being flagged by a background check. As it is now, the DOJ estimates that 35% of the people on the No-Fly list shouldn't be on it. And, it takes months to be removed, if then. The same is true for being flagged in an NCIS check - it takes a very long time to get removed.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 14, 2016, 10:18:14 AM
I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.:yeah:
And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons. You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.
I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms. I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!").
Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors. I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun. I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.
I would like to see a faster process for being removed from the no-fly list or being flagged by a background check. As it is now, the DOJ estimates that 35% of the people on the No-Fly list shouldn't be on it. And, it takes months to be removed, if then. The same is true for being flagged in an NCIS check - it takes a very long time to get removed.
That's frustrating and I agree should be fixed. Mistakes happen but Innocent law abiding citizens shouldn't have to wait long periods of time to have their names cleared.
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
How many laws is the breaking point for these lunatics, is there one? Liberals would suggest there is.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 14, 2016, 10:29:09 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2016, 10:35:06 AM
All those gun control laws in France and the jihadis are still running around with AKs.
Within their own little "no police, Muslim/Sharia only" communities too.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2016, 10:50:36 AM
I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.:yeah:
And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons. You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.
I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms. I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!").
Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors. I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun. I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.
Do you assume the rules for who passes and who doesn't won't change?
The hard part is the guy legally bought the gun even though he was on a terror watch list at one point. If you want to keep guns away from that guy, there are only two real choices - no guns for anyone or add guys to the don't buy list that are under suspicion. That means let the government curtail your rights without judicial action. They could put you on the list because they think you are a bad guy.
He also beat his wife. Had she turned him in, he would have been a felon who never would have been able to legally buy the guns.
She was an abuse victim. We don't blame victims even if they're Muslim. Blame always goes to the killer. The FBI could have done better, too. They didn't pull the trigger.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 14, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2016, 10:58:19 AM
Now they're saying she knew about the plot. Still no blame Pianoman?
Of course not. If she knew, she should go to prison, at the very least. I was only talking about her as a victim. I haven't heard the information she knew about the attack ahead of time. I would say kill her.
Post by: csaaphill on June 14, 2016, 07:55:04 PM
infringementI don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.:yeah:
And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons. You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.
I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms. I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!").
Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors. I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun. I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
in·fringe·ment
(ĭn-frĭnj′mənt)
n.
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege:
Enough Said.
Post by: konradcountry on June 14, 2016, 11:16:38 PM
We'll see what they push for. I don't mind background checks, but I do very much mind registries. Background checks have caught a lot of people. They're relatively harmless for those of us who obey the law.
Curtis
We already have background checks and he passed them. In fact he had a clean enough record to work for a security company.
What they are proposing now is not a background check. It's the ability to deny a firearm purchase without even a process. If they say you are suspicious then you don't get the gun. Why are you on the list? They don't have to explain.
This is why it isn't 'common sense' as many Democrats have claimed. It's a free pass for the government to bypass the second amendment.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 17, 2016, 07:56:31 AM
Post by: csaaphill on June 17, 2016, 06:27:22 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 17, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: timberfaller on June 20, 2016, 07:49:25 AM