Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

NRA Locked in Gun Battle

125 posts in this topic

A Lincoln was against slavery, but not against segregation, he supported it. being against slavery does not mean being for equality.

not a founding father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not a founding father.

oops, good point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they can, but i have never heard of them being used n crimes, heard of few hunting accidents, the are sold with no restrictions(besides age), can be mailed to you directly with no ffl involved, even in nyc, they are legal with no permit, however no caps, balls and powder can be present in nyc, unless you have valid pistol permit.

The exception is Arkansas where the law is silent on primitive weapons, the same rules apply as to all other firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Lincoln was against slavery, but not against segregation, he supported it. being against slavery does not mean being for equality.

I also heard (I should google this and find a link I suppose, @#%$&* laziness) that he said (and I paraphrase): "If I can preserve the Union by freeing every slave, I will, if I can preserve the Union by keeping every slave in slavery, I will"

OK, from Wikipedia (not exactly the most authoritative source I suppose), from Slaves and the American Civil War:

Furthermore, Lincoln divorced the issue of slavery from the entire purpose of the war. He said “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”[6

As I mentioned before, trying not to hijack this thread, just to reply to previous posters

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why certain people in this thread insist that there are strict regulations to get guns in America while the exact opposite is happening:

The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions

Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public—eight states now even allow them in bars—and harder for the government to track. More than two-thirds of the laws were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, though often with bipartisan support. (Note: Click on the colored states for details on additional laws; info on a few particularly noteworthy ones follows below the map. Also see our related story on the frightening rise of mass shootings in the US.)

1348678346-tumblr_mayoziiojx1qat9xfo1_500.png

http://www.motherjon...n Article Feed)

I also do not see what carrying a gun to a bar (where you usually get drunk) has to do with the basics of freedom.

Edited by Render
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*scratches head*

It's like this,as per the NRA ,its an Americans god given right,to bear arms. It's in the constitution .

The government stance is ,gun must be taken out of the wrong hands,but the NRAs stance is,New laws will affect people who deserve to carry guns.

Then of course there is the conspiracy of it all,wherein they are now afraid of class war ,and economic collapse,and the middle class will declare civil war .They also think there are too many of us .....and less is more .

They wants any extra guns out there gone,so the populace will be more easily subdued,if this occurs.

If that is the case,I'm all for everyone keeping their guns ...sorry .

They made the USA this way ,and they keep piling on the oppression .

Sorry, but the government's stance isn't in keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother with all the stupid, ineffective gun control laws, but rather write better crime prevention laws as well as enforce strict enforcement of those laws (you know, common sense).

Yes, the NRA is a huge part of the problem. But the biggest part of the problem are fools that believe gun control will actually prevent crime. It has been proven time and again that is does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China and the Soviet Onion were Communist not socialist.

Really? The Soviet Union was NOT Socialist? So, they didn't call themselves the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic? And that's all made up? Where do you think the idea behind communism came from?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let met get this straight. The NRA is trying to stop the mandetory reporting of stolen or lost firearms?

Umm that makes no sense and how was that not a law already?

~Thanato

You'd be shocked at what should be a law that isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure he is so sorry he is exercising his god-given rights to defend himself, his home, and his country. :whistle:

The NRA (and yes, I used to be a member) does not have the best interest of gun owners at heart. If they did, they wouldn't support asshats like Harry Reid.

They will block any potential law that is not specifically pro-gun. Anything that holds lawful gun owners accountable, forget it. But then again, the DOJ messed up with Operation Fast and Furious, and they don't want to be accountable.... so maybe this is a big **** you to them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of truth to that. Gun enthusiasts usually have registered firearms and at least one that isn't, because it was inherited and was never registered or whatever. Some people keep unregistered guns in case the government comes and takes away their registered ones. It isn't difficult to get one under the table.

Register firearms, you say? (not trying to single you out, but yours is the best that fits my needs).

Not EVERY state requires firearms to be registered. Mine doesn't. Yes, there is a recorded transfer of firearms that stays with the gun store (who IS the registered owner of the firearm) for something like 7 years. Private sales, there is paperwork that needs to be done, and sent up to the feds, but that is just the same transfer record that would be done at a gun store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not every state requires a permit or license, or regestration forms to have on you while having gun on you, that is true, but every ffl transfer is recorded, which is basicly is a regestration.

you might not have to have papaers to prove that, but it is regestered with feds at the moment ffl submits the form.

all depends what you see as regestration.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also do not see what carrying a gun to a bar (where you usually get drunk) has to do with the basics of freedom.

Actually, LEO have been instrumental in getting that passed. It was against the law to carry a gun into any place that served alcohol, which includes most restaurants. They aren't fond of leaving their guns in their cars where they can easily be stolen. It's legal to carry a gun in them now, but you cannot even have one drink while doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a year or two ago, internal affairs busted about dozen of cops, in brooklyn, drinking on duty on their own precinct parking lot, who needs bars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a very stupid

Really? The Soviet Union was NOT Socialist? So, they didn't call themselves the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic? And that's all made up? Where do you think the idea behind communism came from?

So based on that reasoning do you think North Korea is a democracy? And no the USSR was not socialist when compaired to the political practices of today. Just about all of Europe have socialist governments and they're nothing like the Soviet Union.

As for the OP this seems like a massively stupid move by the NRA. If anything they should be supporting the law since it would mean their members wouldn't get in trouble if their missing or stolen guns are later used in a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the OP this seems like a massively stupid move by the NRA. If anything they should be supporting the law since it would mean their members wouldn't get in trouble if their missing or stolen guns are later used in a crime.

it isn't stupid at all. you just can't see the whole pic.nobody stops you to report stolen\lost gun, if it happens to YOU, you are responcible to report, and if you don't want to, no law will change your mind. so nra is against another useless law, that wont change anything. i agree with them 100%.they aren't pushing for a law that will prohibit you from reporting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? The Soviet Union was NOT Socialist? So, they didn't call themselves the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic? And that's all made up? Where do you think the idea behind communism came from?

You know we had this long discussion here on UM with Aroces about why just because they "called" themselves socialist does not mean they were. A common misconception. That's like believing the "democratic peoples republic of North Korea" is democratic.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MULTIQUOTE IS YOUR FRIEND! :tu:

Edited by supervike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't stupid at all. you just can't see the whole pic.nobody stops you to report stolen\lost gun, if it happens to YOU, you are responcible to report, and if you don't want to, no law will change your mind. so nra is against another useless law, that wont change anything. i agree with them 100%.they aren't pushing for a law that will prohibit you from reporting it.

I don't see it being useless. If a gun is used in a crime and has been reported stole it gives police added information to help solve the crime, instead of wasting time dealing with the gun owner. Maybe with the law some people won't be so lazy and irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it being useless. If a gun is used in a crime and has been reported stole it gives police added information to help solve the crime, instead of wasting time dealing with the gun owner. Maybe with the law some people won't be so lazy and irresponsible.

it is very simple really, you lost your gun, you report it, if you don't want to report it stolen you wont. no law will make you do so.

just like laws don't stop ppl from commiting crimes every second, what makes you think this law, or any new law will be different?

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know we had this long discussion here on UM with Aroces about why just because they "called" themselves socialist does not mean they were. A common misconception. That's like believing the "democratic peoples republic of North Korea" is democratic.

dude, your post is common missconseption.ussr was socialist country, whether you see it that way or not. they were in prosses of building comunism, the party was called comunist, but the country was socialist. ask anyone that lived there. read what comuninsm looked like in the eyes of soviets, absolutely irrelavnat how you see it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA (and yes, I used to be a member) does not have the best interest of gun owners at heart. If they did, they wouldn't support asshats like Harry Reid.

They will block any potential law that is not specifically pro-gun. Anything that holds lawful gun owners accountable, forget it. But then again, the DOJ messed up with Operation Fast and Furious, and they don't want to be accountable.... so maybe this is a big **** you to them.

The NRA supports Harry Reid? That's almost like learning Captain America is a card carrying Communist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not every state requires a permit or license, or regestration forms to have on you while having gun on you, that is true, but every ffl transfer is recorded, which is basicly is a regestration.

you might not have to have papaers to prove that, but it is regestered with feds at the moment ffl submits the form.

all depends what you see as regestration.

I thought the feds are supposed to destroy the records after they get them, but we all see how transparent and accountable and honest they are with Fast and Furious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not every state requires a permit or license, or regestration forms to have on you while having gun on you, that is true, but every ffl transfer is recorded, which is basicly is a regestration.

you might not have to have papaers to prove that, but it is regestered with feds at the moment ffl submits the form.

all depends what you see as regestration.

Right, every FFL does keep a record of the transfer from them to you. THEY keep it. Not the feds, not the local LEOs. And if law enforcement wants to know what you have for guns (in states that don't require registration), they have to go either the FFL or your home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA supports Harry Reid? That's almost like learning Captain America is a card carrying Communist...

Yeah. You didn't know that? How do you think he kept his seat all these years? He's a dem that claims to be pro-gun, so the NRA backs his campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a very stupid

So based on that reasoning do you think North Korea is a democracy? And no the USSR was not socialist when compaired to the political practices of today. Just about all of Europe have socialist governments and they're nothing like the Soviet Union.

As for the OP this seems like a massively stupid move by the NRA. If anything they should be supporting the law since it would mean their members wouldn't get in trouble if their missing or stolen guns are later used in a crime.

Don't really think about North Korea, to be honest.

Comparing the socialism from the 20s (and into the cold war) to what is considered socialism today is absurd. Russia tried it, and couldn't make it work. Europe did. But, that does not make the former Soviet Union any less socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.