Gun Control Watch

[jackalo626]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Dude. Why do you even bother?

I just dont let dumb things get said without checking it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You already said you vote to win, so there’s absolutely no point in explaining, as you won’t agree anyway.

But since you’ve made it clear that my statements are dumb, here’s what Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History program has to say:

“The very fact that our electoral system is a winner-take-all system discourages third parties,” she said. “So almost as soon as a splinter group goes off and plans their own platform, one of the major parties, or sometimes both, try to bring those people in. The big parties are like amoebas trying to go around the fringe groups and fold them in...

[Ross]Perot is likely the best modern example of an impactful third-party candidate because his singular focus on a balanced budget forced both Republicans and Democrats to address that issue.
When he got almost 19 percent of the vote, both Republicans and Democrats came together and balanced the budget. The success of his campaign was like a tip from the American people saying, ‘You better pay attention to this. If you don’t pay attention, then something worse is going to happen to you in the next election.’”

It’s not about winning an election. It’s about winning, period.

But thrm addressing it to win just means they don't do it after elected. Lips service is cheap. The person with the non d or r in front of their party doesn't stand a chance at 10% or 30%. Electoral college won't have it either so makimg a ruckus is great feel good potion but they won't make it to office.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Do you even read what I write before you respond?

*After* the election—which Perot *lost*—the two parties worked together to adress the primary issue Perot ran on. The Democrats and Republicans did what Perot’s supporters wanted, even though their candidate lost.

This is in opposition to the status quo, where Ds and Rs do nothing but pay lip service. Using the Republicans as an example, they promise to cut spending and slash the size of government, yet every single Republican government in recent history has taken us deeper in debt and grown the government. The Democrats are equally hypocritical. They know they don’t have to keep promises, because the sheep will vote for them next time around, regardless.

Feel free to disagree with me if you want, with my blessing. But I’m not getting into a pissing contest.

Did you read a troll book only to page 3? You can't just throw out false jabs and expect them to be facts. I read and correct you when you say preposterous things and you just don't like it. You are the biggest supporter of stating politicians lie but now you want to say, vote for a nobody and they won't win but the other 2 politicians that have a chance will do the losers work and to trust that. Its silly and and I have to think you either write this nonsense laughing to see if someone will call you on it or you really believe that idea. You must chill by yourself a lot.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Frailer]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Dude. Why do you even bother?

I just dont let dumb things get said without checking it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You already said you vote to win, so there’s absolutely no point in explaining, as you won’t agree anyway.

But since you’ve made it clear that my statements are dumb, here’s what Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History program has to say:

“The very fact that our electoral system is a winner-take-all system discourages third parties,” she said. “So almost as soon as a splinter group goes off and plans their own platform, one of the major parties, or sometimes both, try to bring those people in. The big parties are like amoebas trying to go around the fringe groups and fold them in...

[Ross]Perot is likely the best modern example of an impactful third-party candidate because his singular focus on a balanced budget forced both Republicans and Democrats to address that issue.
When he got almost 19 percent of the vote, both Republicans and Democrats came together and balanced the budget. The success of his campaign was like a tip from the American people saying, ‘You better pay attention to this. If you don’t pay attention, then something worse is going to happen to you in the next election.’”

It’s not about winning an election. It’s about winning, period.

But thrm addressing it to win just means they don't do it after elected. Lips service is cheap. The person with the non d or r in front of their party doesn't stand a chance at 10% or 30%. Electoral college won't have it either so makimg a ruckus is great feel good potion but they won't make it to office.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Do you even read what I write before you respond?

*After* the election—which Perot *lost*—the two parties worked together to adress the primary issue Perot ran on. The Democrats and Republicans did what Perot’s supporters wanted, even though their candidate lost.

This is in opposition to the status quo, where Ds and Rs do nothing but pay lip service. Using the Republicans as an example, they promise to cut spending and slash the size of government, yet every single Republican government in recent history has taken us deeper in debt and grown the government. The Democrats are equally hypocritical. They know they don’t have to keep promises, because the sheep will vote for them next time around, regardless.

Feel free to disagree with me if you want, with my blessing. But I’m not getting into a pissing contest.

Did you read a troll book only to page 3? You can't just throw out false jabs and expect them to be facts. I read and correct you when you say preposterous things and you just don't like it. You are the biggest supporter of stating politicians lie but now you want to say, vote for a nobody and they won't win but the other 2 politicians that have a chance will do the losers work and to trust that. Its silly and and I have to think you either write this nonsense laughing to see if someone will call you on it or you really believe that idea. You must chill by yourself a lot.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

[Toddstang]

No problem

[WLJ]

128809454942849366-kids.jpg (37.43 KiB) Viewed 764 times

[WLJ]

I'm sure there's a bit of If Trump is for it we must be against it involved here.

This Town: Democrats Consider Torpedoing Gun Control Bill Because...It Could Pass
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... s-n2456495

[PDM]

I'm sure there's a bit of If Trump is for it we must be against it involved here.

This Town: Democrats Consider Torpedoing Gun Control Bill Because...It Could Pass
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... s-n2456495

Don’t want to pass anything that actually works.

[jackalo626]

I'm sure there's a bit of If Trump is for it we must be against it involved here.

This Town: Democrats Consider Torpedoing Gun Control Bill Because...It Could Pass
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... s-n2456495

Wild stuff.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[WLJ]

Meanwhile in gun free Chicago.
They really need a new law making this illegal.

Shootings at Chicago gang members' funerals getting 'out of control', police say
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/05/sh ... e-say.html

[WLJ]

Oregon Man Sues Walmart, Dick’s Over New 21-And-Over Long Gun Requirement
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/0 ... quirement/

[nemo]

an oldie but still funny


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebZ6AdB5PDE

[WLJ]

If you can't get laws passed go after the money

Wells Fargo Is the Go-To Bank for Gunmakers and the NRA
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wells-fa ... 23417.html

[WLJ]

Passed the FL senate and is now awaiting the Governor's signature

790.065 Sale and delivery of firearms.— A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm. The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer. A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, as those terms are defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), or a service member as defined in s. 250.01.

Effective October 1, 2018, section 790.222, 735 Florida Statutes, is created to read:

790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.

That bans not only bump stocks

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/0 ... ns-felons/

[Dustin]

Passed the FL senate and is now awaiting the Governor's signature

790.065 Sale and delivery of firearms.— A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm. The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer. A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, as those terms are defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), or a service member as defined in s. 250.01.

Effective October 1, 2018, section 790.222, 735 Florida Statutes, is created to read:

790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.

That bans not only bump stocks

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/0 ... ns-felons/

Great they are banning belt loops now.

[WLJ]

Thugs don't need no stinking belt loops.

[WLJ]

An unanswered question in the Florida gun debate: What to do with existing guns?
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politic ... ting-guns/

When the Senate debated SB 7026— the gun legislation that just landed on Gov. Rick Scott's desk — Sen. Linda Stewart, D-Orlando sponsored an amendments that would have banned the "sale or transfer" of certain assault weapons. Under the proposal, Floridians would have had until July 1, 2019, to obtain a certificate of possession or remove their assault weapon from the state.

Glad they caught that before it went to the Gov

Schildkraut said although she doesn't believe civilians need assault weapons, lawmakers should focus primarily on strengthening existing gun laws. She noted the law enforcement failures in the run-up to the Parkland shooting and the Southerland Springs, Texas, massacre that claimed 26 lives.

"Because the laws aren't being enforced the way that they're supposed to, and people aren't being held accountable, it's giving (potential shooters) less friction in trying to carry out their plans," Schildkraut said.

[PDM]

She's an anomaly. Kind of nice hearing someone on the other side using logic

[Rem700]

She's an anomaly. Kind of nice hearing someone on the other side using logic

Her party will deal with her dissension quickly.....

[WLJ]

The U.S. Department of Justice formally submitted a regulation on Saturday to ban “bump stocks,” a modification to high-capacity rifles that lets them fire like an automatic weapon.

BREAKING: DOJ Reclassifies Bump Fire Stocks as Machine Guns
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/0 ... hine-guns/

[Frailer]

I just e-mailed this to our senators and my district representative:

I just posted the below information to my social media accounts and wanted to share it with my elected officials as well.

As one who dedicated his entire adult life to defending the Constitution, I find this completely unacceptable:

From the Department of Justice web site:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saturday, March 10, 2018
Department of Justice Submits Notice of Proposed Regulation Banning Bump Stocks

“Today the Department of Justice submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the definition of ‘machinegun’ in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act includes bump stock type devices, and that federal law accordingly prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of such devices...”

Not a problem, right? “Bump stocks” are only owned by the window-licking idiots who exercise their “God-given raaaats” by bringing their Tapco-stocked SKSs into Chipotle. As a guy who enjoys the shooting sports and is sick and tired of these wannabe mall ninjas making us all look bad, I might say good riddance.

Unfortunately, “machine gun” was defined by our elected legislators back in 1934. According to 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), “machine Gun” means:

“Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger...”

Like them or hate them (and I hate them), bump stock-equipped rifles only fire one shot per trigger function. They are idiotic contraptions, but BY LAW they are *not* machine guns.

If this happens, a legal act would become a *felony* by the stroke of an unelected official’s pen.

This is egregious and unconstitutional. Period.

I honestly don’t give a crap if bump stocks are made illegal. But this requires a LAW be passed. By CONGRESS.

Whatever your political affiliation, and whatever your feelings about firearms, this should infuriate you.

Consider the implications for issues you deem important.

[Niceguy]

Absolutely 100% agreement in this!!!

[WLJ]

The proposal still needs the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03 ... ifles.html

Maybe a mere formality, maybe not.

[ssracer]

I just e-mailed this to our senators and my district representative:

I just posted the below information to my social media accounts and wanted to share it with my elected officials as well.

As one who dedicated his entire adult life to defending the Constitution, I find this completely unacceptable:

From the Department of Justice web site:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saturday, March 10, 2018
Department of Justice Submits Notice of Proposed Regulation Banning Bump Stocks

“Today the Department of Justice submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the definition of ‘machinegun’ in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act includes bump stock type devices, and that federal law accordingly prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of such devices...”

Not a problem, right? “Bump stocks” are only owned by the window-licking idiots who exercise their “God-given raaaats” by bringing their Tapco-stocked SKSs into Chipotle. As a guy who enjoys the shooting sports and is sick and tired of these wannabe mall ninjas making us all look bad, I might say good riddance.

Unfortunately, “machine gun” was defined by our elected legislators back in 1934. According to 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), “machine Gun” means:

“Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger...”

Like them or hate them (and I hate them), bump stock-equipped rifles only fire one shot per trigger function. They are idiotic contraptions, but BY LAW they are *not* machine guns.

If this happens, a legal act would become a *felony* by the stroke of an unelected official’s pen.

This is egregious and unconstitutional. Period.

I honestly don’t give a crap if bump stocks are made illegal. But this requires a LAW be passed. By CONGRESS.

Whatever your political affiliation, and whatever your feelings about firearms, this should infuriate you.

Consider the implications for issues you deem important.

Stole the majority of this. Couldn’t put it any better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WLJ]

Their announcement comes after an anti-Second Amendment campaign resulted in over dozen companies cutting ties with the NRA. It also follows a New York Times’ suggestion that Visa and Mastercard could circumvent Congress and restrict “assault weapon” sales by refusing business with “assault weapon” manufacturers and/or dealers.

According to CBS San Francisco, Visa received a petition with 150,000 signatures, asking the credit card company to refuse to process purchases of “assault weapons.”

Visa responded, “We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods and services.”

Visa rejected calls to cut ties with semi-automatic rifle manufacturers by announcing it is not their job to “[set] restrictions on the sale of lawful goods and services.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... facturers/

[PDM]

Second display of logic in under 10 posts. Has to be a record

[WLJ]

Illinois House passes measure to raise assault-style weapon buying age to 21
http://fox2now.com/2018/02/28/illinois- ... age-to-21/

Illinois Bill Ordering Gun Owners to Turn in or Transfer Ownership of 'Assault' Rifles Passes State House
https://ijr.com/2018/03/1074112-illinoi ... lt-rifles/

As different states are looking at their gun laws in the aftermath of mass shootings, the Illinois State House and Senate passed a bill in late February that would require 18- to 20-year-olds to turn in their “assault rifles” within 90 days.

The Associated Press reports Democratic Rep. Michelle Mussman sponsored the bill, and it passed in the House 64-51.

If signed into law, it will prohibit people under 21 years old from buying or possessing “assault rifles,” high-capacity magazines, and .50-caliber rifles.

“There's always the debate about whether or not it's appropriate to have a discussion in the heat of the moment,” Mussman said on the House floor. “But I think that what we are seeing right now is a demand from the public that we stop kicking this down the road. That we actually do something about this.”

Mussman said police will not be going door-to-door to confiscate the weapons, but being caught underage with the banned items will result in a misdemeanor.

In Florida, both state chambers passed a gun bill package that combined a number of pro-gun control and pro-gun rights provisions.

It raises the age to own a rifle or shotgun to 21, but it allows staff at schools to be armed. It also bans bump stocks and creates a waiting period of three days for new gun purchases, according to The New York Times.