Gun Control Under Obama

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6097 Apr 11, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
yesterday evening I picked up 3 firearms I ordered online from 3 separate dealers in the USA.
www.gunbroker.com
All 3 firearms were shipped to a dealer in Delaware where for $35 a gun, background checks were preformed by the FBI.
Why is washington and the liberal press wasting taxpayer dollars debating a new law when it is already in place?
answer....to appease the stupid sheep.
Right, its just diversion by the Democrats instead of addressing the real issues they should be addressing like the economical situation here in the US.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993) is an Act of the United States Congress that instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.

It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks.

Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
1.Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
2.Is a fugitive from justice;
3.Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4.Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
5.Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
6.Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7.Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
8.Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
9.Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
10.Has a record of being a felon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Vi...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#6098 Apr 11, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
yesterday evening I picked up 3 firearms I ordered online from 3 separate dealers in the USA.
www.gunbroker.com
All 3 firearms were shipped to a dealer in Delaware where for $35 a gun, background checks were preformed by the FBI.
Why is washington and the liberal press wasting taxpayer dollars debating a new law when it is already in place?
answer....to appease the stupid sheep.
They're expanding it to all gun shows and internet sales.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#6099 Apr 11, 2013
Pale Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that your mom? What a great lady. Now that is super lady.
No, my mom did not ride. But she knew as much about horses and the business as anyone. She was a great Christian lady, every strong, very smart.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#6100 Apr 11, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
yesterday evening I picked up 3 firearms I ordered online from 3 separate dealers in the USA.
www.gunbroker.com
All 3 firearms were shipped to a dealer in Delaware where for $35 a gun, background checks were preformed by the FBI.
Why is washington and the liberal press wasting taxpayer dollars debating a new law when it is already in place?
answer....to appease the stupid sheep.
PM me which dealer if you can, RS. I may have a better guy for you. Miller's Gun Shop backed the anti-gun legislation, so the locals are boycotting them.

Gun control is dead in DE. They withdrew the bill last Wednesday as no dem will go further than background checks, and not support them on private sales. The article is probably on Delaware Online.

Pulled it out right under Beau Biden's nose.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#6101 Apr 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're expanding it to all gun shows and internet sales.
I really don't have a problem with background checks. Particularly at the 'open air' gun shows. Anything beyond that, I'm dead set against.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#6103 Apr 11, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't have a problem with background checks. Particularly at the 'open air' gun shows. Anything beyond that, I'm dead set against.
The only problem I have with them is the potential use as a registry... that when they decide to confiscate they'll know where to go.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#6104 Apr 11, 2013
I want to ask both "sides". If the issues of gay marriage were linked (I personally think they are... both involve liberty of people who aren't hurting anyone else), which way would you want to see it: Both Gay marriage and guns allowed, or neither allowed?
VADoc

United States

#6105 Apr 11, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
yesterday evening I picked up 3 firearms I ordered online from 3 separate dealers in the USA.
www.gunbroker.com
All 3 firearms were shipped to a dealer in Delaware where for $35 a gun, background checks were preformed by the FBI.
Why is washington and the liberal press wasting taxpayer dollars debating a new law when it is already in place?
answer....to appease the stupid sheep.
I think the federal government should pay for the background check since they are forcing the issue. The police department should have register the weapon for me at no cost to me. If government issued ID for voting has to be free to not be considered a poll tax then requiring anyone to buy a permit (this is the case in North Carolina) or paying for a transfer or background check should be free to the citizen.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#6106 Apr 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only problem I have with them is the potential use as a registry... that when they decide to confiscate they'll know where to go.
That's exactly why they're pushing it so hard. They've even admitted that background checks wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings of the past 15 years. But they're using dead kids and their parents to appeal to low information morons all the while salivating at the thought of a national database.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#6107 Apr 11, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly why they're pushing it so hard. They've even admitted that background checks wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings of the past 15 years. But they're using dead kids and their parents to appeal to low information morons all the while salivating at the thought of a national database.
A guy on MSNBC said "universal gun registration" instead of background checks.

It was a Freudian slip, that isn't supposed to be Jour-no-list authorized yet.
VADoc

United States

#6108 Apr 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
I want to ask both "sides". If the issues of gay marriage were linked (I personally think they are... both involve liberty of people who aren't hurting anyone else), which way would you want to see it: Both Gay marriage and guns allowed, or neither allowed?
I see it as a states rights issue for gay marriage. States are responsible for licensure to marry. So if the Supreme Court thinks that states should not be able to ban gay marriage by popular vote then no state should be able to have a magazine ban, assault weapons ban, or outlaw concealed carry.

The left cannot have their cake and eat it too.

And before you leftists start screaming at me I fully support gay marriage and I think it should be a state issue. If gays want to marry get your state to put it on the ballot and vote for it. If you want to be married move to a state that supports it and has laws passed for it. I did this for firearms laws. I could have made more money working in states like Illinois or New York or California, but I like my gun rights and so I chose to move to South Carolina from Ohio.
Pale Rider

AOL

#6109 Apr 11, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly why they're pushing it so hard. They've even admitted that background checks wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings of the past 15 years. But they're using dead kids and their parents to appeal to low information morons all the while salivating at the thought of a national database.
I think Obama is wanting to get registration, next will be confiscation. No guns. Then call in Al-Qaeda we are under Shariah Law. The rich fly out of America!
alice

Sherwood, AR

#6110 Apr 11, 2013
Hitler told his people that this is good for are nation. He disarmed the people for the greater good. Then he went after jews. He was a leader who had no religous beleifs. I hope it would never happen here or anywhere.
Pale Rider

AOL

#6111 Apr 11, 2013
Will TonyD2
VaDoc
Reality Speaks

Be deemed as mentally ill?
Next they will be called upon by the Federal Government to turn over all their weapons.

Old windblower Reality Speaks will have more time to use his cain poles, and dig for fishing worms. Ha! ha! ha!
Pale Rider

AOL

#6112 Apr 11, 2013
alice wrote:
Hitler told his people that this is good for are nation. He disarmed the people for the greater good. Then he went after jews. He was a leader who had no religous beleifs. I hope it would never happen here or anywhere.
Why do people like you bring up Hitler? We may have a few faults. But ungrateful people that bring up Hitler have a few screws loose in their head. If you were in North Korea, you could really have a worry. If you were in China and made such a ridiculous remark, you most likely would be executed. Those remarks are about the President of the United States. There is a place for some things. A time to remain silent on other things. This isn't Nazi USA! You should be ashamed for denouncing our leadership in such a manner.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6113 Apr 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're expanding it to all gun shows and internet sales.
did you miss the part where all 3 were purchased through the internet?

gunbroker.com to be exact.
Pale Rider

AOL

#6114 Apr 11, 2013
I think Obama is wanting to get registration, next will be confiscation. No guns. Then call in Al-Qaeda we are under Shariah Law. The rich fly out of America!

I just wrote that to see how many looney tunes would comment, or in fact agree with that nonsense.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6115 Apr 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
I want to ask both "sides". If the issues of gay marriage were linked (I personally think they are... both involve liberty of people who aren't hurting anyone else), which way would you want to see it: Both Gay marriage and guns allowed, or neither allowed?
the problem for me with gay marriage is the word marriage.

call it a legal partnership, problem solved.

the political agenda to re-define words thousands of years old....not happening in this lifetime.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6116 Apr 11, 2013
Pale Rider wrote:
Will TonyD2
VaDoc
Reality Speaks
Be deemed as mentally ill?
Next they will be called upon by the Federal Government to turn over all their weapons.
Old windblower Reality Speaks will have more time to use his cain poles, and dig for fishing worms. Ha! ha! ha!
did you call a septic tank cleaner to remove cellulite from your 200 pound azz?
Pale Rider

AOL

#6118 Apr 11, 2013
Srotaredomtihstae Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
if they are adjudicated insane then why would they not go ahead and kill massive numbers of obama voters given they would not be guilty.
I read somewhere you voted not once but both times for Obama Spooks. LQQK QuT!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Saudis lobbying AMERICAN COMPANIES TO STOP OV... 3 min Maverick 808 3
Jews 🔯 37 min Sheeny Sorcerer 10
Tyre King 39 min Big Johnson 21
Trump's Wall 55 min White Man 793
Donald Trump - Hillary Clinton Presidential Debate 1 hr White Man 45
Toxic Caterpillar looks like Trump? 2 hr Pam 8
Donald J. Drumpf: Scumbag 2 hr Mimzy 3

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages