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.
The point is at least for me, that this dope Weisser is now used by the left as a poster child for gun control. He was brought up again by the left last night as the face of "reasonable" gun owners. This is why I say boycott his store.
Sure he has the right to say what ever it is he wants. Heck he can say he is for NAMBA, but then I don't have to buy from him either. Joe Mansion is another. Do I think his bill is horrible? No I don't but he is pushing a bill that he as a gun supporter does not have to push. What the heck is he thinking? And will he get challenged next election cycle?
Why do these people think its on them to do something because some people who's kids were killed go in front of any camera available and whine about it. I am not diminishing their pain, but how many of us have lost someone and we don't run around the country trying to change the world.
I am not diminishing their pain, but how many of us have lost someone and we don't run around the country trying to change the world.
I think that statement says why many do try to make changes. Some have gone thru and worked, others not so much. Far too many die at the hands of a drunk driver, groups like MADD have grown from those deaths and have done some good to try and prevent more. Yet every day another may die from that.
I have zero problem with anyone who has lost a family member or friend, and uses that tragedy to fight for a change they believe in that may save another life. I dont agree with those who parade victims as their poster child for change; if a victim speaks out on their own i will gladly listen but that doesnt sway my vote on a bill or party platform. Nor do i agree with those who blindly follow a group against any change without incorporating their own thoughts and opinions first.
Even a newbie like me can agree with lifelong gun owners that many of what's being tossed around for "ideas of change" now would not have saved any in the recent shootings, and i know putting an armed guard in a school wont stop another shooting at a sprawling college campus, mall, or workplace. But that doesnt mean that the issues shouldnt be looked at, and a common ground found for change that could help in the future.
We cant save everyone from a drunk driver, a shooter, or any other instance where an innocent life is harmed or taken. Yet I believe we should try to do something to at least limit the tragedies that are sure to come.
The thing is that many are just going with a "we must do something" attitude. Even if it would not have done any good, we need to do something. I just don't see this as a way to accomplish anything. Instead of talking about it and coming up with things that may work, its we have to act now.
So all this hype is about back ground checks. But yet the same people who are hosting Mike Weisser like Rachel Maddows and Lawrence O'Donnell keep doing pieces on a child killed by a single shot 22lr, or a revolver, so what is the end game? If high capacity mags. and semi auto rifles that look like Military guns were the only thing they want to ban, then why do pieces on some kid who was shot by accident with a 22lr single shot? Or some revolver the parents left out? If the end game is not to ban all guns, to drum up hate for all guns, then why do these pieces in the first place?
Why trot out Mike and have him go on about how the NRA is lost and BGCs are great and then do a spot on how all these kids have died from single accidental gun shots from guns that are not even targeted at the moment? For me it shows them for what they are, anti gun, not ARs and AKs, but all guns.
When Mike goes out and opens his mouth against the NRA [I do not agree with every thing the NRA does at all times, but to let the antis divide and conquer is to do just what they want] I really don't know what he thinks he is going to accomplish. They want to use him as a wedge then toss him in the garbage when they want to do more then even he will go along with.
So I say if you buy from this guy, just find another place to put your money.
Of course I want to see all laws enforced but what is the point of enforcing the law as it is? If it was really enforced, how many of those who shouldn't have guns would go to a gun store or use the internet/FFL to get their hands on a weapon? Answer...none because there is still a gaping loophole that you don't want to close.
Scenario #1: You and a guy agree to meet in a parking lot to purchase a gun you advertised. He gives you cash, you give him your legally owned gun. You even give him a bill of sale and take down his DL#. He uses the gun to kill someone. The cops find his receipt and the family's attorney decides you represent the low lying fruit. You get civilly sued (or worse?) because you put the gun in his hands.
Scenario #2: The law has been changed so now, unless you are passing a gun down within the family, the transaction has to be completed thru a FFL. The FFL does the background check, it doesn't go thru, and you don't have to worry that a) you might be negligently liable and b) that you are responsible for putting a weapon in the hands of a bad guy.
I like freedom as much as the next guy but I like individual responsibilty and accountability to go hand in hand with that freedom, too. If you want to enforce the law as it exists, there is no logical reason that you should not want the law to be thorough. Otherwise, you are just fooling yourself.
I think you are vastly underestimating most gun owners. As one myself, there is no scenario imaginable where I would sell some random guy a gun in a parking lot or anywhere else. Also, you already stated the preexisting disincentive to selling a random guy a gun - the ever present threat of a civil lawsuit.
I think you are fooling yourself that Scenario #2 will provide any additional protections to society. So far as I know, most of the recent mass-shootings have been perpetrated by guns bought from FFLs or were stolen. While only speculation, I would imagine most street level shootings are committed with stolen guns.
No, I never suggested that the big headline shootings would be or would have been prevented by having every sale run thru a FFL. As I said before, it is pointless to have background checks for some gun sales but not for others. That is my only point. Either drop all checks (not my idea of a good idea) or make it uniform across the board. That is all I'm saying the NRA should agree with.
I think you are vastly over estimating the greatest number of individual gun sellers. If you frequent the websites where guns are advertised, they pretty much all fall into two categories. Interstate transactions where a FFL is required, and face-to-face (FTF) deals where no FFL is involved and there's no shipping. Many of them flat out state that they prefer FTF. Do you really think these FTF deals dont take place between two random guys? C'mon! I don't know if most guns used in crimes are stolen. I suspect they are. There's not much we can do about that but there is something we can do about selling guns to bad guys.
And, as long as I'm on my soapbox, if we would finally get serious about gun crime, anyone who commits a crime with a gun should get life in prison (or death) whether they use the gun or not. I doubt it would take long before we see the number of gun crimes go down to a trickle and stay there.
I think you are vastly underestimating most gun owners. As one myself, there is no scenario imaginable where I would sell some random guy a gun in a parking lot or anywhere else.
I remember a gun show here in town earlier in spring, of course thousands of people lined up to get in. And the one picture the paper put on the front page: some guy who moments earlier bought himself one of those highly coveted "get 'em before they ban 'em" rifles. Just to walk into the parking lot, and sit in the bed of his pickup, trying to sell it at a profit.
Now i dont claim to know how these shows should or shouldnt operate, but even if this was a random act, by it being published it just adds to the 'fire' about how simple it could be for someone to go there and buy a gun, good or bad intentions.
It did not say if he held an FFL, but my impression based only on the pic shown was he's out for a quick buck, rules need not apply. So sure the press can twist things how they wish, but if the general public sees stories like that, while battles rage on about how easy it is to get a gun, that can not be of any help to the gun ownership side.
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.
Did you say this guy was a life member of the NRA? After reading his "open letter" I'd pitch in to refund the $1000 he spent and revoke his membership. The NRA won't do that though because one sad thing is this guy is right, in a way. The NRA is mostly a fundraising organization and that appears to be what they are MOST concerned about. I don't know how many FOUR page front to back letters I've just went ahead and pitched because I knew they were filled with over the top fear mongering. Then it all ends with a nice little form to put in your credit card info......
I would however agree with the OP that this is a guy who is no freind of the nra OR gun owners either one.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-11-2013 at 10:32 AM..
...but so many gun owners just refuse to say it out loud.
You know why? Because look at what happened to the guy who is the subject of the OP.... I think his little open letter was kinda wacky, but this is the nature of politics today. He has his own opinion and his fellow gun rights supporters have decided to crucify him for it. regadless of the subject matter being discussed, You either have to be on ione side or the other, you aren't allowed to be in the middle because if you are you are seen as a traiter. If you say you are on this side, but you agree with the other side on even one little thing, your own side will cut your throat and leave you for dead. What ever happened to compromise? What ever happened to working things out with a cool head? Those days are long behind us. I'm one of these middle ground guys, and neither the right nor the left wants anything to do with what I have to say. Shouldn't be that way.
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 hate owners and salesman who are only in it for the "money". I won't buy from a jerk like that.
If it's not his passion, he should do something else.
You can always tell it when it's like a used car salesman pitch or something. You ask....he DOESN'T know.... jack ****.
I'll take my money and my business somewheres else.
I hate owners and salesman who are only in it for the "money". I won't buy from a jerk like that.
If it's not his passion, he should do something else.
You can always tell it when it's like a used car salesman pitch or something. You ask....he DOESN'T know.... jack ****.
I'll take my money and my business somewheres else.
Yep, this is the exact point of the whole post.
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.
