Darn, that ruined my whole plan of attack!Keith B wrote:... and make sure your voice is heard as a level headed person and you are not perceived as some deranged gun-loving redneck
Search found 4 matches
Return to “Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing”
- Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:16 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
- Replies: 127
- Views: 21149
Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
- Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:54 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
- Replies: 127
- Views: 21149
Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
That ain't the point, sir. This law addresses an issue other than 'some dude' stealing your pistol. I fully agree that there are loopholes. I fully agree with less laws being better. But I also agree with the need to stop mentally-ill people from getting firearms. This is a valid method to prevent it.JALLEN wrote:Like almost all proposals aimed at "doing something," this one doesn't seem to promise any real effectiveness.
This law won't stop "some dude" who stole my pistol from selling it to the perp who got caught with it, having bought it for $200, no background check, no paperwork, no ten day wait, probably not even a cancelled check. The perp was good and ineligible, underaged, a prison record already. They weren't going to use an FFL, NICS or any other formality, and don't give a flip what the Legislature wants, Congress wants or anything else.
This and similar transactions, the ones we really do want to stop, will go on unimpeded, while some otherwise lawful transfers will be stopped.
- Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:06 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
- Replies: 127
- Views: 21149
Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
It did not occur to me that it was a poke. It appeared to be a direct attack. That is the problem with posting on a forum. What you say can be interpreted quite differently than what you intended.killerfly128 wrote:Seriously? It is OK for another member to be slightly condescending and nasty, but the second I poke fun it becomes wrong?Purplehood wrote:I think that a simple, "I disagree" may be a more appropriate statement.killerfly128 wrote: Your tin foil hat on too tight this morning?
- Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:00 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
- Replies: 127
- Views: 21149
Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing
I think that a simple, "I disagree" may be a more appropriate statement.killerfly128 wrote:anygunanywhere wrote: The government in its present form can do NOTHING right. NOTHING!> I trust the federal govertnment with NOTHING. All three branches are corrupt and do not follow the Constitution at all unless it furthers their agenda of running this country into the ground, turning it into a socilaist mecca.
Anygunanywhere
Your tin foil hat on too tight this morning?
Based purely on this statement I would have to agree that the bill is bad. But until reality meets up with our desires, I feel that the bill is good.Congress has no constitutional authority to pass any firearms laws. None.