On this latest Gun Grab by the Grabbers

JerrySharrett

JerrySharrett

Senile Member
Without getting into a Dem vs GOP political debate which CCBW says is a No-No, something to think about/;

We serious shooters know and most hobbyists shooters now the functional difference in an "Assault Rifle" and a regular rifle is simply this "Horrid and to be Taken Away"
assault rifle is black and has a thingy hanging down that D. Boon and GI Joe's "gun" didn't have, the functional effect is ZERO. In reality the G I Joe gun, the 30-06 BULLET weight is about as much as this crappy AR-M-Whatevers total load weight is. About 180 grains or so.

The thing WE need to do is to make sure the commoners around us know the difference in "mass killing ability" is zero between Uncle John's hunting gun and this evil "thing" is actually less than ZERO.

Remember the horrid "Saturday Night Special"??


More importantly for WE/US to communicate is that our exalted ones in DC and Capital City know, is THAT WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE-NONE and they need to also know the difference!!

its

www.house.gov

www.senate.gov
.
 
Last edited:
More importantly I think that those in charge understand that it's THE PERSON, NOT THE TOOL that are responsible. When they understand that ,then the rest is a moot point.
 
Last edited:
Jerry, also that everything they want to accomplish such as the regulation of internet sales and the so called gun show loophole has already been taken care of by the gun control act of 1968. If you think about it most of these politicians were in grade school when that law was passed. According to the GC act of 1968 anyone dealing in firearms has to have a FFL. If someone is routinely selling guns at gun show after gun show, then they are dealing in firearms and should have a FFL. If you have a FFL, you run the background check before the customer picks up the firearm. It doesn't make any difference whether it's at a gun show or at your place of business. The same act required that firearms be shipped to a FFL holder and couldn't be shipped directly to the purchaser. It makes no difference whether the firearm is ordered from Davidson's, Jerry's Sport Center or from someone selling it on gunbroker.com or gunsamerica.com, it still has to go to a FFL to be transferred to the purchaser. If someone is selling guns online and shipping them directly to the non licensed customer, then they are breaking the law and should be prosecuted. Going after the firearms because an Islamic terrorist used a certain style firearm to kill people in a night club is as insane as going after pressure cookers because some more Islamic terrorists used pressure cooker bombs to target people in the Boston marathon or going after jet airplanes because some more Islamic terrorists used jet airplanes to bring down the World Trade Center. I think they are missing the common link in these events and it's not the tool that they used.
 
Mike Bryant said:
Jerry, also that everything they want to accomplish such as the regulation of internet sales and the so called gun show loophole has already been taken care of by the gun control act of 1968. If you think about it most of these politicians were in grade school when that law was passed. According to the GC act of 1968 anyone dealing in firearms has to have a FFL. If someone is routinely selling guns at gun show after gun show, then they are dealing in firearms and should have a FFL. If you have a FFL, you run the background check before the customer picks up the firearm. It doesn't make any difference whether it's at a gun show or at your place of business. The same act required that firearms be shipped to a FFL holder and couldn't be shipped directly to the purchaser. It makes no difference whether the firearm is ordered from Davidson's, Jerry's Sport Center or from someone selling it on gunbroker.com or gunsamerica.com, it still has to go to a FFL to be transferred to the purchaser. If someone is selling guns online and shipping them directly to the non licensed customer, then they are breaking the law and should be prosecuted. Going after the firearms because an Islamic terrorist used a certain style firearm to kill people in a night club is as insane as going after pressure cookers because some more Islamic terrorists used pressure cooker bombs to target people in the Boston marathon or going after jet airplanes because some more Islamic terrorists used jet airplanes to bring down the World Trade Center. I think they are missing the common link in these events and it's not the tool that they used.
Click to expand...

Mike, you know and I know this isn't about GCA 68, nor peoples safety, nor ISIS, nor Muslims, nor Assault rifles, nor duck hunting,nor whoever. This is about taking the guns away from honest American citizens.

Honest and concerned people need to get involved and VOTE OUT the grabbers!!

Islamic terrorized did 911?? Bull!! I used to be a commercial pilot and a Cessna aircraft dealer. According to "the experts" an arab with 27 hours of dual instruction in a Cessna 150 who was not proficient enough to solo got in the left seat of a Boeing 767 in Boston, flew it down that NE corridor, turned and banked it right into the center of WT 2?? Bull!!


..

..
 
In Maine this November

we have a referendum question on the ballot...to close the gun show loophole on background checks. Sounds simple huh? Well its not, the law proposed will also:

1. prohibit me from lending a friend a gun to go bird hunting
2. Me and a friend are returning from a hunting, I stop at a gas station, I get out and leave my friend in the car with my gun...I'm breaking the law
3. I'm house sitting my neighbors house while he is away. There are guns in his house. We are now both criminals.
4. I leave my rifle at camp with a fellow camper so I can run into town for the newspaper. We all are now criminals

It's never about just one "loop-hole" its about grabbing guns...that's the true end play. Always has been, always will be.

2.5 million will be spent by out of state interests to try and pass this abomination, The main money behind this effort...Michael Bloomberg!

UBCBadForME.com
 
glp said:
we have a referendum question on the ballot...to close the gun show loophole on background checks. Sounds simple huh? Well its not, the law proposed will also:

1. prohibit me from lending a friend a gun to go bird hunting
2. Me and a friend are returning from a hunting, I stop at a gas station, I get out and leave my friend in the car with my gun...I'm breaking the law
3. I'm house sitting my neighbors house while he is away. There are guns in his house. We are now both criminals.
4. I leave my rifle at camp with a fellow camper so I can run into town for the newspaper. We all are now criminals

It's never about just one "loop-hole" its about grabbing guns...that's the true end play. Always has been, always will be.

2.5 million will be spent by out of state interests to try and pass this abomination, The main money behind this effort...Michael Bloomberg!

UBCBadForME.com
Click to expand...

Thats what Washington State passed. Google WA I 594.
 
mrspradlin said:
Thats what Washington State passed. Google WA I 594.
Click to expand...

Too True.....and I think I'm the only guy in this state who'll call in background checks for this new law

And the fbi hates me for it! :)

As a Firearms Education instructor we have had to deal with this a ton......so I'll call in background checks when we have a range full of students, or even when I've family and friends over for an informal day of trap shooting. Of course I ask people first whether or not they mind.

I've actually had agents tell me "you guys over there need to pull this together!" and "This is stupid" and even "we don't DO random checks like this" to which I reply

"But SIR, or MA'AM, IT'S THE LAW!??"

"What would you advise me to do?"

It's a mess......

If you actually try to "do the right thing" like a Good Liddle Sheeple I really don't think there's a gunstore in the state that'll take your money....

Altho I could be wrong
 
gun grabbers

I saw on the news, when the dems were having their anti gun rally in the house, this rep. from Florida who said the American public didn't need a gun that would shoot 600 rounds a minute. Refering to the ar 15. Id like to see somebody pull the trigger 600 times in a minute let alone load the clips. That's M60 speed. That's the mind set were dealing with. Doug
 
Doug Casner said:
I saw on the news, when the dems were having their anti gun rally in the house, this rep. from Florida who said the American public didn't need a gun that would shoot 600 rounds a minute. Refering to the ar 15. Id like to see somebody pull the trigger 600 times in a minute let alone load the clips. That's M60 speed. That's the mind set were dealing with. Doug
Click to expand...

Doug, one evidently doesn't get much smarts with a Poly Sci degree.


..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top