Heston and Brady debate on Field & Stream

The title says it all to this GOA member...

"The Two Faces of Gun Control"
Charlton Heston and Sarah Brady
 
kersnip:
The Two Faces of Gun Control
Charlton Heston and Sarah Brady

Gun control is one of the most hotly contested issues in
America today and is already a flash point of debate among
politicians as we head toward the November elections.

Indeed, the outcome of these elections may have
far-reaching implications both for gun ownership
and sport-hunting in America. This is why I invited
Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle
Association, and Sarah Brady, chair of
Handgun Control, Inc., to openly share
their views in this exclusive debate.

The Outdoor Life staff developed the list of questions;
then we asked each representative to address them in his or her
own words. Each side was asked to limit the length of his
or her responses, to simulate, as closely as possible, a live
debate. The text was edited for style only and
appears in its entirety.
Neither side has seen the other's response until now.
Todd W. Smith
Editor-in-Chief

4. Do you think autoloading sporting arms fit the
definition of an "assault" firearm?

Heston:
No. Al Gore, the national news media and anti-gun lobbyists
certainly believe self-loaders are "assault weapons." The 1994
Clinton/Gore so-called "Crime Bill" banned more than
175 autoloading firearms the anti-gun elitists deemed
cosmetically ugly and politically incorrect. And this law gave the
Department of Justice the authority to continue to add
self-loading firearms to the banned list,
depending on certain cosmetic features.

The truth that every shooter knows is that all
self-loading firearms function the same, regardless of
cosmetic features. A self-loader shoots the same,
whether its stock is made of polymer plastic or carved
wood. But politicians and the national media
who don't know the difference between a
single-shot rifle and a semi-automatic shotgun will use
any means possible to ban a few more guns and a
few more after that. In the end, they want all guns banned.
The American people won't support that. So they
ban what they think they can politically get away
with a few guns at a time. But rest assured,
their goal is to ban all of them.

I believe that any object in the hands of a violent
criminal is an "assault weapon." In fact, according
to FBI and state and local police reports, far more
murders are committed with knives, or blunt objects,
or even with fists and feet. Yet rather than direct
the Justice Department to fully enforce existing
aws against armed criminals, the Bill Clinton and
Al Gore administration has pursued an eight-year
agenda to ban any and every kind of gun they can.

Tragically, during the first seven years of
Bill Clinton/Al Gore's administration, federal prosecutions
of gun criminals decreased by 44 percent, according to
data compiled by Syracuse University. Americans deserve and want an administration that will "assault" violent criminals,
instead of one that demonizes self-loading firearms
and their lawful owners.

Brady:
Assault weapons are not just "ugly guns." Semi-automatic
hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend
on the accurate shooting of one bullet at a time.
Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired
from the hip and are designed to maximize death and injury from a
very rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed with
military features such as silencers, folding stocks, flash suppressors,
barrel shrouds and bayonets,
which are ludicrously unsuited for civilian use.

Handgun Control supported and saw the successful
passage of California's new assault weapon law,
which for rifles prohibits folding or telescoping stocks,
protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles
or flash suppressors or grenade aunchers(!).
Pistols cannot have magazines that extend beyond
their grips, threaded muzzles, barrel shrouds, an unloaded weight
of 50 ounces or more or be a semi-automatic version of a
fully automatic weapon. Shotguns must also not utilize the folding
stocks or protruding grips appropriate for military use, accept
detachable magazines or have fixed magazine capacity greater
than five rounds.
 
Dangit, Sarah, there's something wrong with my guns! Can you help? I can't get my AR15 to fire faster than my 1911. Even when I shoot the AR from the hip. And, when I do that, I can't tell where the shots went, 'cause they're not on the target. You're an expert on guns, Sarah. Help me.

B*tch


Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Good God, do these people listen to themselves? Designed to be "spray-fired?" Designed to shot from the hip? Show me the specific feature of the design of an AR-15 which shows that it works better from the hip.

These idiots said for a long time that a pistol grip was proof that a gun was made to be fired from the hip. Firing from the hip, in turn, was somehow more deadly than aimed fire from the shoulder. I think these morons watch too many cowboy movies.
 
Considering the NRA and SAFE are backed now in publicity by a billionaire it wont be long now before private sales are not private but registered by the goverment.
But here I am just being couter productive.


Campaign 2000: Guns and crime
Billionaire backs gun-curb measure

Andrew McKelvey reported set to pour cash into campaign for Amendment 22

By Dick Foster
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internet billionaire Andrew McKelvey will launch a massive ad campaign in Colorado this week supporting Amendment 22, which would require background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows.

The ads will be sponsored by Americans for Gun Safety, a new national organization formed by McKelvey, the 65-year-old patriarch of the internet Web site Monster.com.

He plans ad campaigns in both Colorado and Oregon, the two states with ballot proposals to tighten gun controls by requiring background checks at gun shows, Newsweek magazine reports in this week's issue.

McKelvey announced creation of his new organization last week at a news conference in Oakland, Calif.

Already, he's put more than $12 million into his organization and is expected to provide millions more, the Newsweek article stated.

Americans for Gun Safety has contributed $80,000 to Safe Colorado, the principal backers of Amendment 22, through a donation to the Tides Foundation of California that was forwarded to the Colorado group.

But the McKelvey group's ads were developed independently of Safe Colorado.

The ads scheduled to run in Colorado and Oregon will feature a "prominent Republican official" speaking in support of the gun control initiatives, and are characterized by Newsweek as "made to make headlines."

"I don't know anything about the ads," Safe Colorado spokesman Tom Mauser said Sunday.

No one from the Colorado group has seen the ads or knows what they will say, Mauser said.

"But I certainly don't think they're going to say anything that we're going to be greatly bothered by," Mauser said. "They clearly know what's going on in Colorado and what our issue is."

Americans for Gun Safety and Safe Colorado share a moderate stand on gun control, favoring reasonable restrictions and background checks on firearms sales, but not bans on all guns.

"As a new organization, we haven't defined all of what that means yet, and I'm not sure Americans for Gun Safety has defined all of what that means," Mauser said. "Certainly, on a modest issue like closing the gun show loophole, I'm sure we're in agreement."

A spokesman for McKelvey's group, Jonathan Cowan, told Newsweek, "We support the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use guns, flat out, but we also believe that with the right to own guns comes responsibilities."

Contact Dick Foster at (719) 633-4442 or fosterd@RockyMountainNews.com.


October 2, 2000

http://www.denver-rmn.com/election/1002mons5.shtml



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Dear Gun Rights Supporter,

Last year we all watched in horror at the tragedy at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Nearly as horrific was the feeding frenzy of the anti-gun media and the drum beating of the gun control advocates who used this incident as an excuse to call for draconian new limits on our freedom.

In Colorado, almost all of those gun control proposals were defeated by GOA and our local partners in freedom, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO).

But our friends in Colorado are now in a fight for their lives: they must defeat a statewide initiative, sponsored by the father of one of the Columbine victims, to close the so-called "Gun Show Loophole."

Earlier I alerted you to a ballot initiative in Oregon. Frankly, the battle in Colorado may be even more important to you and me.

That's why I ask you right now -- today -- to send a contribution to RMGO either by mail to PO Box 3114, Denver Colorado, 80201 or at http://www.rmgo.org/donate.html on the web.

Why is this important to you?

First, RMGO is a true grassroots organization that has fought all the right battles and done remarkably well.

But their funding, from activists in Colorado, isn't sufficient to overcome the incredible tide of out-of-state cash being raised by their opponent, SAFE (we believe SAFE is more accurately called "UnSAFE" since they advocate the disarming of citizens).

SAFE is raising money from huge foundations, liberal trusts, and outside groups to fund their power grab -- a funding source our Colorado allies do not have.

The entire nation is watching Colorado. It has been considered a "pro-gun state" until now, and the media is building up this initiative battle as the granddaddy of political wars. RMGO's Executive Director Dudley Brown has been a guest on countless national news programs during the last year, defending our rights in the face of blistering attacks from the left-wing media. Brown always concludes that the Columbine shooting might have been stopped had a teacher been carrying a concealed weapon.

Because of this national spotlight, Colorado is now the battleground for our rights. And if we -- you, me, and every citizen who is concerned with freedom -- won't help RMGO fight off this attack on our gun rights, who will?

Below is a note from RMGO's Dudley Brown to tell you how you can get involved.

Please help out now.

Sincerely,
Larry Pratt

P.S. RMGO deserves your most generous support. Please send a contribution to RMGO at PO Box 3114, Denver Colorado, 80201 or give online at http://www.rmgo.org/donate.html on the web.

*************************************************

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
PO Box 3114
Denver, Colorado 80201
970-842-3006

Dear Friend,

My fight is yours, and yours is mine: wherever the attacks are launched on our freedoms, I am willing to fight.

It took only a few hours for the national media to start talking about gun control the day two murderous thugs entered Columbine High.

Rather than cower and apologize for our freedoms, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners answered the call to defend our Constitutional rights.

While we didn't win every battle in the state legislature, we did make our enemies pay for every inch. And one issue they couldn't pass was to force private sales at gun shows through their Brady Registration check.

SAFE -- Colorado's top front group for disarming law-abiding gun owners -- immediately turned to a ballot initiative, knowing they would have willing accomplices in the media and a torrent of cash from every left-wing "public interest" group.

This week, RMGO is kicking off its fund raising efforts to fight this initiative.

We make this plea to gun rights supporters across our great country: stand up with us, and oppose this scheme.

Now, the radicals at SAFE raise their money from just a few contributors in $1000 chunks: we, on the other hand, have to raise our money by thousands of donors in small amounts.

Your donation of $100, $75, $50 or even $25 will show our opponents that America isn't going to let them get away with buying out our civil rights.

You can make a donation online at http://www.rmgo.org/donate.html or by mail at PO Box 3114, Denver Colorado, 80201.

There is no time to waste -- we must gather the resources necessary to fight this gun control proposal as soon as possible.

All eyes are watching to see what Colorado does. We ask for your assistance, and your prayers.

Standing firmly for freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director

P.S. Colorado has become the battleground for our gun rights, and we need help. The gun-grabbers are raising money hand-over-fist from liberal out-of-state organizations, and I am certain we cannot compete without your assistance.

Please donate whatever you can afford -- $25, $50, $75, $100 (there are no limits) -- to RMGO as soon as possible to help us fend off this attack on our freedoms.

*************************************************

Name____________________________________

Address___________________________________

City_____________________________

Zip________________________

Contribution $25_____ $50_______ $100_____ $250______ $500_____ $1000_____ Other______

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
PO Box 3114
Denver, CO 80201

Please Make Checks Payable to "RMGO"

I know the NRA posted a similar alert I just lost track of it...

LOL-LOL-LOL

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Interesting bit of reading.
Here is what I commented on about the debate according to the poll they conducted.

I only voted for Brady on two points, and that was for the school education of firearms, and the background checks.
As far as the education, I don't want my child to be forced to learn about sex education in school because I feel that it's my responsibility as the child's parent to do that. And because of that, I don't feel that it would be fair to the parent's that don't want their children to know about guns, to make their children learn it at school. If I wouldn't want my child to learn about sex in school, I don't think we should force another parents child to learn about guns in school. Ultimitly it should be up to the parents.
And on the background checks, I think a little bit of compromise is in order. Mainly because as Heston said that we all agree that background checks are needed. And if licensed dealers have to do it, why don't anyone not licensed have to do it? Because there is violence in the world, I think some precautions are needed. And I don't think that REASONABLE background checks would be an infringment on 2nd ammendment rights. Its just a way to better insure the safty of others. If we have to take a driving test, or a security background check in order to work for a company that has secure information like a credit bureu, why wouldn't we want a security check before handing someone a potentially deadly weapon?
CW




------------------
Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So many politicians......so little ammunition!!!
 
Christina-I think you should have to go through a background check before you open your mouth again,and everytime after that you think about doing so.
What?You think you have rights??
I dont think so sister not until the Federal government sais you do and charges you for making that decision for you.
And yes thats the same federal government that knew when it was best to go into Waco, what to do at Ruby Ridge and how many sub-machine guns were needed in FL when Elian was rescued and taken back 'home' to a communist dicatatership.
A complete ban on illegal drugs has done how much to stop criminals from selling them in America.
A complete ban on guns in England has done what good to stop criminals from becoming armed and 'raping' over the unarmed 'ever-compromising and trustful Englanders BUT
youve got the gaul to tell me that FEDERAL or state checks at public gunshows are gong to stop criminals from getting guns when they want to
and you have no problem with the feds keeping records of all the law abiding gunowners while their at it like they did in England,and NYC sometime before they banned them.
If you like compromise so much why dont you move to NYC or England I think thats just about their way of life.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
At some point in time the criminals will set up shop and start manufacturing their own weapons and ammunition. That point will be when the supply of firearms and ammo is contrained by price and availability.

The more we compromise on the issue the more unavailable firearms and ammo will become. We will be paying the price for the evils of others who will not be affected, monetarily or legislatively, by the regulations these compromises will engender.

We are now the ones who have to pay for the privilege of having an anal exam every time we wish to purchase a piece of property. We are the ones who have to pay for the privilege of getting a license to own a firearm or purchase ammunition. We are the ones who have to pay for the privilege of being issued a "permit to purchase" a firearm. We are the ones who have to pay to have our mug shots and fingerprints taken so they can be placed on the state criminal database with rapists, child molesters, and cop killers.

Compromise my a--. We have compromised, and compromised, and compromised until we are blue in the face and the antis come up with still more "reasonable", "common sense" restrictions on our rights -- all the while stating that they don't want to eliminate our right to have firearms while decrying that right as non-existent.

Throughout the history of this nation a person who was incarcerated did not lose their right to keep or bear arms. A prisoner who was released from prison was issued the property that he had when he was captured including the rig he was wearing at the time of his arrest. That was true up until the twentieth century.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) changed all of that. A person who had a felony record was suddenly deprived of this right and the public was brainwahed into thinking that this was a good thing to do. Never did they realize that this restriction would become more and more stringent as time went on. Persons are now losing their rights for simple misdemeanors. Criminal records are now being regurgitated back to juvenile records for the purpose of restricting rights -- even though there was no subsequent bad behavior. Ex post facto laws are now enacted and enforced. Persons who have been rehabilitated are now treated as criminals for life. Everyone is bad and no one is good. Once a bad guy -- always a bad guy. That is not the principal upon which this nation was founded.

The mantra of compromise is what has gotten us to where we are today. We fell for the "common sense" lie. We fell for the "reasonable" lie. We fell for the "we'll only restrict them but not you" lie. We fell for the "we'll only come for those guns but not yours" lie. We fell for the "All we want is ..." lie. Why should we fall for any more of their lies.

Much of this happened because of the apathy of the common shooter. "I'm a wheelgun man and I don't own any autos. My guns are safe." "I'm a wingman and all I have is side by sides and over and unders. I don't own any 'assault rifles'." "I'm a skeet shooter and my semi-auto shotgun isn't on the list so it doesn't affect me." YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE you are out there, all of you, and many of you still think that same way.

Well, they are coming for your firearms -- every one. They are coming for those that look bad. They are coming for the ones that hold too much. They are coming for the ones that are too small. They are coming for the ones that are too big. THEY ARE COMING FOR THEM ALL.

And those who think that they are safe -- that their firearms are safe and compromise is the answer -- they will come for you, too.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Good grief, take a chill pill. I am on your side. I was just agreeing with Heston. I know background checks don't keep guns out of the hands of all criminals. I am NOT dumb. But, it limits what they can get from just going into a store and buying one. As I said, if we have to go thru a security check to work for a security sensitive company, then why wouldn't we for buying a gun? I NEVER said compromise until there is nothing left. I just meant that background checks aren't bad. That doesn't mean that we give them everything.
Also, I NEVER EVER said anything about a national database that would expose those of us that own guns. So, Ruger, STOP putting words in my mouth. You don't have to attack my opinions. I don't appreciate that at all. I own guns, I don't want them taken away. Just because I think that a background check is needed, doesn't make me the enemy, so don't make me out to be. Please don't read what I wrote and go off the handle about it. I just threw it out there as my opinion. As I said earlier, I AM ON YOUR SIDE. I am got apart of HCI. So, please don't attack me.
CW

[This message has been edited by Christina Whittington (edited October 04, 2000).]
 
I would have thought that this thread would bring us together rather than start an argument. I must say that CW's post surprised me. The gun issue in school is not a RKBA issue to me, so much as it is an issue of do we want our children to know about guns or do we wnat them to just hear about them from friends. When I went to school I was told about drugs and sex and the implications of participating in those activities. I knew, or at least was told, what could happen if I did either of them and it made me think twice before jumping right in and doing it (no pun intended ;) ). If a child is told that he/she might kill themselves or a friend if they play with a gun, I think that will have the same effect.

As far as what you said about the background checks, I would hope that you look at some of the things people already have to go through in some states in order to own a gun and realize that that is coming to all of us if we keep "compromising". I once said something on another thread about background checks and it was along the same lines as you, and Gunslinger let me know how he felt about it. It made me think. I was mad that I was accused of compromising our rights when I never asked for these things and was an NRA member and thought that I was doing my part as a gun-owner. But when I stepped back and looked at what he said and where he was coming from, I saw his point of view and understood his anger. We have already given up SO much and they aren't slowing down. They just keep going for more and more. And they always back it up with "for the children". Please, it's for them and their own agendas. We can't just keep compromising. Where will they stop if they get checks on private sales at gun shows? They won't until they make it to where you have to have a check for ALL transactions. They won't stop until they make it to where if we meet at a pistol range and I want to buy your gun, You would first have to put me through a background check in order to sell it to me legally. That's stupid. They are targeting the law-abiding instead of the criminals and it makes no sense.

ruger45, There are other ways of making someone understand you rather than getting upset with them and saying something like that. We are on the same team here and when a member of our team says something you don't agree with the worst thing you can do is attack them. Let's try to educate our own so that they can educate others that they know rather than turn them away with insults and make them an enemy.
 
I'm sorry I didn't think about it that way. I guess I thought that it wouldn't hurt to do background checks on everyone. I guess I was wrong to think that they (HCI organizations) would be happy, but I now see what you mean. They won't stop.
I really want to understand all of this, and slowly I am. I don't want to lose my guns either. I guess at the time I read the debate, it seemed logical. Infact it still does a little bit. JUST A LITTLE. I need more of you to give opinions and thoughts so that I can really make a better informed judgement on it. Please if I am wrong in my opinions PLEASE PLEASE explain it to me. I come to TFL for information, education, and talk on any and all topic of guns. So, please help me. But please don't attack me. I am on your side like I said. If I am wrong, just show me. Please don't beat me up with words. :( :( This has made me sad. Huke, thanks for your explanation. I really appreciate it. Ruger, I understand your anger and frustration. But please remember what I said in this post. Just tell me what you think in a good, constructive, way.
 
Your quite right HukeOKC (are you from OK)
and Chritina.
Christina my aplogogies let me explain where my anger comes from.
Think back to the last time you bought a gun
I bought one last week.YOu see it wasnt
the year 2000 in the so called free United states of america it was the 1930's in
Nazi germany.
You see I wasnt able to purchase a firearm because Im a citizen of a free country where we have the right to do so
I was able to purchase one because our federal government allowed me to pay for that priviledge as long as they kept a record of that sale so that if they ever deemed to revoke that privilidge they can come and (try) get the firearms back ( to make the streets safe.)
They dont ask for your social verify it and check if you have a record.
The write down your social on that nifty yellow form,your name your address they read off and record the serial number off your gun.This is all recoded on paper.They check your ID to make sure they have the proper address and social security nunber.
Ive had wal-mart managers check behind their dealer to make sure they recorded the gun serial number accuratly onto the form
(for those states where they only write long gun good for you thats never happened for me)
they put this all on paper.
The dealer is required to keep up with these records if he ever goes out of business he is required to turn them into the FBI.
(facist burea of intimidation)
Some dealers have been harassed and harassed about their older records by the BATF(like hmm those before the NICS system) When the dealers complain about how long it takes them to look up older records that the BATF
claim wasnt a complete sale the BATF simply tell them to turn the records over to the ATF and some have done just that.
How many wonder what they do with those paper records??
What kind of records were used in NAZI germany to keep track of the gunowing Jews
Christina?
They were paper records.
The Jews originally ,most tell us consented to this and even set it up but allowing such infromation to be kept record of leaves it
vulnerable for abuse like by who ever's in power at the time.
I always thought criminals were the ones that needed to be kept track of not free law abiding men.
No national database?NO you may not have intentionally referred to one but you did.
When we go through so called 'background check' performed by a licensed FFL dealer
we first have the above record made thennnnn
the dealer calls up the BATF and reads off every bit of information you gave the dealer.
Do you know how hard it would be for the BATF to record that information.
All they have to do is hit RECORD tell me they cant tell me whos going to stop them.
If they have the slightest interest in recording gunbuyers theyd have to be stupid not to do it.
Then they simply file the information under your social security number either in a file or in their computer.
The FBI keeps files on our very own congressmen and senators who in the world do you thinks going to prevent them from doing the same with us once their so kindly given the info.
This is why I like being able to buy guns from individuals.
Then atleast I may have a few suprises in store for those whove come for the guns that I bought after going through a 'background check'.
Eliminating the 'gun show loophole' is simply one more step towrd national gun registration.
I am german and Id rather Hitler's Legacy of
guncontrol and abuse of gunregistration stay back in NAZI germany but it has not...

City by City State by State they will take control.
GOA and CCRKBA have already stated they both feel the NICS system is being used as national gunregistration database and the LEAA is suing the FEDS over abuse of the NICS system.
This is why I call those who wish to compromise our sacred bled for freedoms
'good little Nazi's'.
Originally most of the germans loved Hitler they rode on his hate for the jews,many jews even supported him because they were promised rewards ( we'll have safer streets,
our economy will be enriched by the efficiency of govenment controlled society)
by the time they realized it was about control not betterment of the people it was far too late.
www.gunowners.org www.ccops.org www.ccrkba.org www.leaa.org


------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Great post ruger45, all 3 of em ;) . He hit it right on the head though CW. I too used to think that it was a good idea to have these background checks, until I started a part-time job at Wal-Mart in Sporting Goods and found out how the records are maintained. The dealer is supposed to keep the Form 4473 (yellow background check form) for 20 years, and if they go out of business during that time then they have to send the records to the BATF. That blew my mind. Most businesses will close in that time and the others will have a tremendous task of storing that many forms. It seems like a set-up. All the BATF has to do is go and inspect in 10 years or so and check their forms and declare that the store has violated some rule and confiscate the forms while voiding the dealers FFL. It will come back to bite us and it makes me mad that the NRA allowed these kinds of rules get by them in dealing with the forms knowing that they will be used against us some day.

corrected the #4 to a 3 in reference to ruger45's triple tap.

[This message has been edited by HukeOKC (edited October 05, 2000).]
 
I've come to believe that people will accept damn near anything if you simply preface the infringement with 'reasonable' and / or 'sensible'.

It's really pretty simple ... some citizens are not legally allowed to own firearms. Let's enforce that law.

Remember ... in spite of the Brady law's requirements, the FBI does not 'instantly' destroy the records from background checks. And now, they want to extend that control to private transactions ... this really doesn't have diddily to do with gun shows.

The debate is clear ... you either are comfortable with governments knowing exactly who has what firearms, or you're not comfortable with them having all that data. It's that simple. Make your choice, and be honest about it.

And, I really don't give a rat's a$$ if Heston agrees to this. He's been wrong before.

Any 'right' that requires a permit, approval or other action from the government becomes a privilege, not a right. And, in the words of MLK, 'a right delayed is a right denied'.

When they close the 'gun show loophole', they will then attack all private transactions. After all, that is only 'reasonable'. This will soon get to the point that you cannot simply gift a firearm to your own relatives without breaking the law.

When someone's goal is to push you into the sea, it is insane to compromise. Christina, while some individuals only want what they see as 'reasonable' compromise, taken as a whole, all of these actions combine to destroy the RKBA.

Regards from AZ
 
Wow. Tempers flare.....

Folks, Christina is not trying to cost anyone any freedom. She's pretty new to all this gun stuff and is still forming her opinions. You are not convincing her by insulting her.

Christina, you know me. Remember when I showed you my Illinois FOID card? In Illinois, we have all the background checks you can imagine. It takes two separate checks to buy a firearm--one to get the FOID, one when you purchase. In addition, we have a "waiting period" of one day for long guns, 3 for handguns. These rules DO apply at gun shows as well, so there's no so-called "loophole" to blame here.
With all this, crime in Illinois is much higher than places without all those restrictions. Even if you take out places like Chicago and East St. Louis, it would still be comparable if not higher. In other words, the experiment you support has been tried. I live it. It is a dismal, expensive, oppressive failure.
 
THee are aslo tales of the BATF running weekly 4473 checks at a store to overload the staff. The government offered solution is for the store to get a new licence and send in all the old licences 4473s!

dZ
 
Don Gwinn,
Only one person so far has been rough on CW and he apologized. So who do you mean by "folks" :confused: I think it has been a rather educational thread so far except for that one post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top