Companies dumping the NRA

[Bob Denman]

Pete your sarcasm is showing!

Sarcasm as a Font.jpg

[Machinegunner]

What concerns me, was yesterday there was discussion of confiscating guns first and then going to court. Anybody with a disagreement with you could report you to authorities and you would lose you gun rights. Would cost an innocent person thousands of dollars to maybe get their rights back. Very scary slippery slope. The Constitution guaranties due process. We have to follow our Constitution or we are done.

[r1100rider]

Maybe it should be.......but it isn't.

It is all about who "gets the drop" first.

No matter what kind or how many guns you have........if the bad guy(s) has his pointed at your head from 12 inches away FIRST......you are pretty much screwed. Reaching for any kind of weapon in that situation is NOT a smart thing to do.

There is no such thing as a "gun free zone" without effective screening at the doors.

Please list all the mass shootings that were not in gun free zones

[UtahPete]

What concerns me, was yesterday there was discussion of confiscating guns first and then going to court. Anybody with a disagreement with you could report you to authorities and you would lose you gun rights. Would cost an innocent person thousands of dollars to maybe get their rights back. Very scary slippery slope. The Constitution guaranties due process. We have to follow our Constitution or we are done.

I believe it was our President who suggested that would be his preference .

[Bob Denman]

While I'm not 100% behind this one: I can appreciate the motives behind it.
Get the firearms out of the way; adjudicate the situation, and give them back if no problems are found.

Is it worse to leave the firearms in the home, and let the owner know that there's a potential problem???

A lot of the finer details of this Plan need to be shown to me...

[Bob Denman]

Seeing Other Men.jpg

[UtahPete]

While I'm not 100% behind this one: I can appreciate the motives behind it. Get the firearms out of the way; adjudicate the situation, and give them back if no problems are found. Is it worse to leave the firearms in the home, and let the owner know that there's a potential problem???

A lot of the finer details of this Plan need to be shown to me...

I don't think there is a plan. It was just thrown into the discussion. It isn't going anywhere. Our Congress thankfully isn't ready to relinquish control to a police state mentality.

[Bob Denman]

That's kind of how I took it... But I'm glad that they're pitching everything out on the table for discussions.

[Orange Spyder Man]

Right. We tried "open carry" for a fairly long time back in the 1800s.........and it didn't work very good.
It won't work very good now either.

And those who point to "gun confiscation" in other countries in the past are just throwing up an inflammatory smoke screen.

from your reply ...the slaughtering 57,900,000 people is just an inflammatory smoke screen... a trivial amount of human beings slaughtered by their own government... HUH ????????????

[UtahPete]

That's kind of how I took it... But I'm glad that they're pitching everything out on the table for discussions.

[Trickie Dick]

What concerns me, was yesterday there was discussion of confiscating guns first and then going to court. Anybody with a disagreement with you could report you to authorities and you would lose you gun rights. Would cost an innocent person thousands of dollars to maybe get their rights back. Very scary slippery slope. The Constitution guaranties due process. We have to follow our Constitution or we are done.

Our Dear leader got that from his VP. Indiana already has a law that allows the police to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals who are threatening harm to others or themselves. The process is then reviewed in court as to whether the weapons are returned to the owner or not. In the meantime there is nothing to prevent the owner from going out and buying more firearms.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ork/355132002/

[UtahPete]

Seeing Other Men.jpg

I'm sorry to hear that Bob ....

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

IF YOU FAVOR OUR GOVERNMENT DISARMING ITS CITIZENS... READ THIS : THIS IS FACT.. NOT FICTION ... THINK IT COULD NOT HAPPEN HERE... SO DID THESE CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES ..

Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.[Editor: You can argue about the numbers, but the point here is that disarmed citizens are vulnerable, and that there are many historical examples of disarmed citizens being killed and oppressed by their own government. The excuse given by authorities that they need to take guns away from citizens in order to lower crime rates is not supported by facts. Even if a government does not turn on its own citizens after disarming them, people are less safe – because unarmed citizens are easy targets to criminals. Over and over again, it has been clearly shown that taking guns away from citizens does not lead to a decrease in crime but rather a dramatic increase.]Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.I guess the criminals did not turn their weapons in. Only the innocent law abiding citizens turned in weapons.In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate.The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, or deer hunting. It is about having the ability and the right to defend oneself and your family. It doesn’t matter if that threat is a burglar, or the Federal Government. A disarmed population is fair game for any president who may be aspiring to become a dictator. Having its citizens armed was the plain and simple intent of the founding fathers of our country.

OK so what you are saying is guns are for killing people. then the kid in florida did exactly what he should with the
ar-15. perhaps the nra should go door to door to get all americans who can legally own a gun or rifle to do so.

[wyliec]

For those that are not familiar with the basic gun anatomy 101:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20111205104227

[UtahPete]

Our Dear leader got that from his VP. Indiana already has a law that allows the police to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals who are threatening harm to others or themselves. The process is then reviewed in court as to whether the weapons are returned to the owner or not. In the meantime there is nothing to prevent the owner from going out and buying more firearms.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ork/355132002/

Thanks for the explanation. I couldn't understand why the Presidential lap dog was nodding in agreement with this suggestion.

[wyliec]

IF YOU FAVOR OUR GOVERNMENT DISARMING ITS CITIZENS... READ THIS : THIS IS FACT.. NOT FICTION ... THINK IT COULD NOT HAPPEN HERE... SO DID THESE CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES ..

Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.[Editor: You can argue about the numbers, but the point here is that disarmed citizens are vulnerable, and that there are many historical examples of disarmed citizens being killed and oppressed by their own government. The excuse given by authorities that they need to take guns away from citizens in order to lower crime rates is not supported by facts. Even if a government does not turn on its own citizens after disarming them, people are less safe – because unarmed citizens are easy targets to criminals. Over and over again, it has been clearly shown that taking guns away from citizens does not lead to a decrease in crime but rather a dramatic increase.]Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.I guess the criminals did not turn their weapons in. Only the innocent law abiding citizens turned in weapons.In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate.The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, or deer hunting. It is about having the ability and the right to defend oneself and your family. It doesn’t matter if that threat is a burglar, or the Federal Government. A disarmed population is fair game for any president who may be aspiring to become a dictator. Having its citizens armed was the plain and simple intent of the founding fathers of our country.

loisk,

I guess what you said was incorrect concerning the Australian turn in of guns. I guess you just can't trust those Aussies. I'm just glad that your mistake was caught before you swayed the thinking of many.

[UtahPete]

loisk, I guess what you said was incorrect concerning the Australian turn in of guns. I guess you just can't trust those Aussies. I'm just glad that your mistake was caught before you swayed the thinking of many.

Lois didn't make any mistakes; she told the truth.

It would be a mistake to think extremist propaganda is fact-based.

[Bob Denman]

Or Left-Wing propaganda either...

[UtahPete]

Or Left-Wing propaganda either...

Good point. Corrected my post.

[wyliec]

Lois didn't make any mistakes; she told the truth.

It would be a mistake to think extremist propaganda is fact-based.

I thought my post was one of those facetious things that you spoke of.

[UtahPete]

I thought my post was one of those facetious things that you spoke of.

Ohhh, now I see it! Went right over my head.

[RinconRyder]

Please list all the mass shootings that were not in gun free zones

The most recent one? Las Vegas

[Bob Denman]

And that Bar in Orlando...

But the largest portion of the mass shootings occur in Gun-Free zones.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Seeing Other Men.jpg

i have no opinion until she shows me her guns

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

i would just like to say this: i am a pervert not a gun owner, it is the extreme of either is where there is a problem.
if a burglar breaks in and grabs my gun then i will have to use a knife and just hope he doesn't.