Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not know where his shop is,but I say if he does not like guns so much, don't buy anything from him. Boycott his store where ever it is. If anyone knows where he is post post post on every forum to have people stop buying from him. We don't need his type.
I don't see a lot wrong with what he is saying. He's not calling for gun control, he's calling for the same thing a lot of gun advocates are calling for. He is saying that we should lead the cause for responsible gun ownership. He didn't say we need more laws or more restrictings, he is saying that we already have laws, but they need to be enforced.
it is embarrassing when something like Sandy Hook happens. A lawful gun owner was not as dillegent as she should have been. She knew that her son was not mentally stable and should have had extra precautions to prevent him from gaining access to her guns. Do you not agree that there was a short coming in her dillegence?
You have to give this guy credit for being honest and straight forward with his beliefs.
You might want to.reread what the guy is saying. We do need to champion the cause of proper gun ownership and when somebody steps outside the law, they need to be prosecuted. I mean things like back ground checks. I don't remember the exact numbers, but 80,000 people were turned down for purchase and a lot if those were known felons. They were turned down but not prosecuted for knowingly trying to break the law.
If we don't take the bull by the horns and enforce the current laws, politicions are going to want to continue to add more laws that we don't need. We have laws that can reduce crime, but they are no good if they are not used.
as an admitted gun newbie still forming my own opinions on all this, i thought it was a well read piece he did. After all it is his opinion which he has the right to speak of. I am torn as to some of the concerns on background checks but do agree that enforcement (or lack of) is probably the #1 issue right now.
Heck, down here in SC they had to just pass a law for federal mental health data to be shared with the state -- a woman who threatened to shoot Pres Bush some years ago claimed a mental health issue, and that did not flag when she recently bought a gun and took it to a Charleston school. The saving grace was she didnt know how to load it.
Thankfully the state gov did not pull the usual party politics on this and the bill made it thru quickly so this example can be avoided in the future. But if she would have been able to pull the trigger, lord knows what could have happened.
I'm sure most gun owners practice safety first, but it does start at home. After all, i'm sure we are all tired of hearing about these shootings, whether its in a crowd, or even a small child who found a gun at his home. They wont all be stopped, but somehow they need to be lessened. And having the 2 extremes battling may never bring a reasonable discussion to the table.
I think the case for back ground checks can be made with out going on MSNBC and joining a show that calls ARs a massacre machine and a weapon of mass destruction.
For me its less about the idea of a universal back ground check then it is some guy who is supposed to be an NRA member and also gun shop owner and going on a show and network that is as rabid anti gun as it comes. I say boycott his store and see if it makes him think about what he is doing to the cause.
I saw what happens when you give in to "common sense" gun laws. We ended up with Magazine and gun bans that lasted 10 years, and sent prices into the stratosphere for a few years.
One of the things not accounted for in the bill was who will pay for a BGC? If the gov. mandates it, they need to pay for it. Also if I walk into a gun shop and say I need to transfer this gun, and they have several customers buying a 500 dollar gun, how fast are they going to get to me? Nothing was addressed about this.
People who go on Huffington post and MSNBC are no friends of gun owners. I don't care how nicely they put the idea of UBGCs. I agree that Nancy Lanza was a total idiot. She let her mentally retarded son have access to guns. But what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? If someone lets their kid sit in a car with the keys in it and they back over three kids playing behind it, its nothing to do with my Chevy.
Last and not least, is the fact that if a BGC were in place it would not have stopped Columbine, Aurora, Giffords or Newtown. Not one of them. So if we had a BGC in place do you really thing for a second that MSNBC would say, we have a common sense BGC in place so we don't need to do more?
Or do you think that they would still trot out the familys with tears flowing saying we need to ban semi autos, high cap mags and more? And if that were done, the next time a person who was off used a shotgun to shoot up a school it would be how needs an assault shot gun and on goes the marygoround.
Last edited by nutnfancy; 05-07-2013 at 08:16 AM..
Hmmmmm. I thought this thread was about him and what he said. You have taken it way beyond that topic. He didn't say anything about more laws, he didn't say anything about more detailed background checks, he simply talked about existing laws and enforcement.
I think you are reading more into it, than what is there. Regardless of his beliefs, he is still a shop owner, still selling guns, still following the law.
I think I posted the wrong link. He did an interview on MSNBC. Here is the link that his interview starts about 4.38 mins. in. He does disparage the NRA.
He talks about Evolve, and he joined up and also sent an open letter saying he did not agree with the NRA. here is the link, you decide if its something that is supporting gun rights or not. It was promoted on Pierce Morgan. https://twitter.com/Evolve_Us
Then on the same interview Anna Marie Cox comes in and says her father who was an NRA member renounced his membership because they have lost their way.
Then Mike goes on to come back into the interview with Lawrence O'Donnell where he asks mike about his open letter to the NRA that says its all about gun sales and not about its members. O'Donnell goes on to ask what Mike thinks about Smith and Ruger stock going up so much in value. And his answer is a give away for me. He says that it was NRA rhetoric after Obama was elected that drove people to buy guns.
Watch the interview and see what you think. I think he is not for gun rights, as much as he is going along with the knee jerk reaction.
Last edited by nutnfancy; 05-07-2013 at 01:02 PM..
Sorry I couldn't make it to the annual meeting. I'm a Life Member and I try to get there every year. But this year is different. If I showed up you'd tried to get me to help you fight a "culture war." But if there is a war going on, you represent the wrong side.
I just watched your speech. I think it's time you dropped this nonsense about protecting our "rights." Be honest and tell it like it is. The reason you're opposed to background checks has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It's about making it as easy as possible for everyone to own a gun. More guns means more profits for the gun companies, and that's who you really represent.
In 2011, Ruger's stock was trading at $21 a share, now it's at $51. Smith & Wesson's stock was three bucks a share, today it's almost nine. I remember after the 2010 elections when it looked like the Obama administration was going to be toast, gun dealers like myself couldn't give away the inventory. Now we can't keep anything on the shelves. You keep referring to the president as an enemy of the gun industry. The truth is that Barack Obama is the best salesman the industry ever had.
And the reason he's such a good salesman, Wayne, is because you and your allies have spent the last 20 years making every gun owner believe that the only reason we have any gun laws at all is because the Washington "elites" want to take away all our guns. So when a tragedy like Sandy Hook occurs and well-meaning people react to such senseless violence by looking for ways to make it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands, you and the other "protectors" of the Second Amendment get right to work convincing responsible gun owners that such laws are aimed at them. You are protecting illegal and "irresponsible" gun owners, and lumping them in with the majority of legal gun owners who are careful with their weapons. That's because an irresponsible gun owners' money is just as good for gun companies as a responsible gun owner, and you want to protect your market share, even at the expense of innocent lives.
It's easy to cloak yourself in a holier-than-thou mantle of God-given rights to avoid looking at the facts. And the facts are that private-citizen vigilantism doesn't protect anyone from gun violence; it actually results in more violence and deaths. It's easy to disparage the 90 percent of Americans who are in favor of expanding background checks by telling your audience that some unnamed Congressman from some unnamed state hasn't gotten any calls. But maybe the time has finally come when most Americans are more worried about ending the 100,000+ firearm deaths and injuries than whether you and your NRA cult of followers can Stand and Fight.
For all your talk about defending liberty Wayne, I'll give you something more important to defend: the young children whose lives always seem to take a back seat to how many guns you can get Americans to buy. I'm talking about children at Sandy Hook, a 4-year-old in New York, a 2-year-old in Kentucky. There's something immoral about denying any connection between the deaths of children and the explosion in gun sales that you claim show how much we love our freedom. I'd rather have those kids alive, even if it costs me more than a few bucks in gun sales. I joined Evolve so I could be part of an organization that wants gun owners and non-gun owners to lead with solutions that can talk about saving human lives and preserving our Second Amendment rights. That's patriotic and that is a future worth fighting for.
One of the persistent issues always seems to be that the perp is, 95+% or more of the time, under the influence of a true psychotic break incident, one in which reality and the perp's attitudes towards his fellow citizens is completely suspended. Thus, the guns a a'blazing and the bodies flying.
And yeah, fact is, if I wanted to take on a theatre full of people, I would also arm myself with an AR, an AK or the like. Certainly not my single-shot Sharps, or a muzzle loader, or even my old Remington 700 in .30-06, if the idea is to mow lots of 'em down. To make, you understand, that important cultural statement!
We as citizens, and the more so if we are also guy owners and fanciers, need to take an active role in reducing the incidence of these horrid crimes. But as we also ABSOLUTELY KNOW, licencing and registering of all weapons will, of course, do NUTTIN'! Diane Feinstein be damned! She's intellectually unprepared to comment on this issue, and she always proves this with her nonsense claims. There are far better uses of our limited Federal funds.
Just an FYI: if the major initiator is a psychotic break, and in many cases, possibly induced or exacerbated by the use of pot, then perhaps we also need to look into the pot user backgrounds of these mass murders.
I mean... (ahhhndddd... cue the shower scene violin music from Hitchcock's "Psycho"... <Skreeeeek skreeek skreeeeeeeeekkk>)
..what if...
(This just in: New US Federal Ordnance: "No one who has smoked or used any marijuana in the past 5 years, determined by a thorough and mandatory clinical medical test, may borrow, use, target shoot or (<cue the legal sound-note from CSI>) own a firearm until they are a minimum of 28 years old, and only then if their mommy and our trained specialists co-agree."
As states legalize Marijuana its going to be hard to make a law that is like what your advocating. Its about as much to do with pot as it is with Alcohol is to drunk driving.
Your way is to attack another non issue. Pot is here and we are filling prisons up with people who commit non violent crimes, such as having a joint. We may as well go back to 1920 and arrest people who have a beer.
The thing is I don't believe we can stop people from doing bad things. Not completely. Every time something happens like Sandy Hook people run out with their hair on fire and want to do some grand thing that will make it so it will never happen again. Then someone figures out its easy to make Black powder from scratch and buy a pressure cooker and nails.
Its not pot, its not black powder and its not guns. Its people. How do you stop people in a free country from doing bad things? I don't think you can.
If you allow people to protect themselves it may slow it down some. But it can never stop it completely.
Sandy Hook was an example of the perfect storm. Its was not just a gun or just some autistic person who was not all there. It was a parent who seemed to let her autistic son play violent video games almost full time, and then proceed to give him access to weapons and teach him how to use them, and things we don't know and may never know, such as teaching him to also drive a car when he could never get a DL. All this came together along with what ever in this kids mind drove him to desire to kill people at his old school.
How do you stop someone from swerving into a group of kids loading on and off a bus for school? You can't, and it makes no sense. Your mind want's to desperately make sense of a situation and thinking you can't make sense of.
I would go along with one area that Republicans fight against. Universal Health care. Evey one has to go in once a year for check ups if they want to keep their health care.
If some Health Care worker sees that someone is talking crazy or to themselves they can note it on their record and set them up for a psychological exam. Maybe we could stop some of these things this way, and maybe not. If there were easy answers we would not be talking about it.
I don't see a lot wrong with what he is saying. He's not calling for gun control, he's calling for the same thing a lot of gun advocates are calling for. He is saying that we should lead the cause for responsible gun ownership. He didn't say we need more laws or more restrictings, he is saying that we already have laws, but they need to be enforced.
it is embarrassing when something like Sandy Hook happens. A lawful gun owner was not as dillegent as she should have been. She knew that her son was not mentally stable and should have had extra precautions to prevent him from gaining access to her guns. Do you not agree that there was a short coming in her dillegence?
What gun law do you propose that would have prevented that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
