racer254 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Zambroski said: The liberal shit rhetoric train has left the tracks. Some of the comments on these failed bills from them is just plain absurd. Only the liberals currently on the teat must believe some of this shit. There's a better chance I'd start praying to Jesus every night than to somehow crossover into a whole new dimension of dementia and start believing this complete garbage And nobody can figure out why Trump is so popular....really? It's because the Liberals are just that much more hated. Incredible. Yep, voters see this, including some of the liberals. I just listened to a liberal talk show where they couldn't understand why the democrats didn't at least vote for the 2 republican bills. They said it would have at least been a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just now, 1jkw said: What gives a gun dealer the right to deny anyone their constitutional rights? I have no idea but again gun dealers having a list of "suspected terrorists" is not a good thing. The constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to own body armor. Hold on now...these dealers are not a government run institution. They reserve the right to refuse service and sales to anyone if they feel it may be a dangerous situation. In fact, I'm not sure of the law but that extends to a lot of things that anyone can get "refusal" for. Like a late night drunken request for another round refused by a bartender. Perfectly legal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, racer254 said: Yep, voters see this, including some of the liberals. I just listened to a liberal talk show where they couldn't understand why the democrats didn't at least vote for the 2 republican bills. They said it would have at least been a start. Because it is a "all or nothing" scenario for the Dems. And as long as the media is willing to mildly wash it as the Republicans fault, they have nothing to lose. Vilifying the competition has worked for them for 8 years. Nobody in their right mind changes things that are working well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: Well the one dealer got away with it. Well everybody can see who the pedophiles are in their area. Point is dealer did deny and no one has bitched yet that I have seen. No big deal..if you read elkhorns post above it seems there are things in place but those things may need to be fined tuned better or something. The dealer didn't refuse to sell him a gun it was body armor. Convicted pedophiles, not suspected pedophiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just now, 1jkw said: The dealer didn't refuse to sell him a gun it was body armor. Convicted pedophiles, not suspected pedophiles. But he could have I believe if the guy seemed dangerous ..like Z pointed out. Good point on the pedophiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, 1jkw said: What gives a gun dealer the right to deny anyone their constitutional rights? I have no idea but again gun dealers having a list of "suspected terrorists" is not a good thing. The constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to own body armor. Every legally sold gun in the country by a licensed dealer (FFL) to an individual is required to do a background check (NICS) with the FBI. I would think the FBI would have access to a "suspected terrorists" list.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Because it is a "all or nothing" scenario for the Dems. And as long as the media is willing to mildly wash it as the Republicans fault, they have nothing to lose. Vilifying the competition has worked for them for 8 years. Nobody in their right mind changes things that are working well. I think you would be surprised how many republicans, especially republican women, who can't understand the need and the love for these assault style rifles. It's something like 85% of Americans want some type of legislation, so it's not only dems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, 1jkw said: I think you would be surprised how many republicans, especially republican women, who can't understand the need and the love for these assault style rifles. It's something like 85% of Americans want some type of legislation, so it's not only dems. I agree. And technically, I'm one of them. Something needs to be worked out, and something eventually will be. But I don't like one side or the other blaming all this shit on their opposition for political posturing. There is a reason it didn't "fly" and to go on record with careless and dangerous remarks deceiving the public ON PURPOSE should be criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, Rigid1 said: Every legally sold gun in the country by a licensed dealer (FFL) to an individual is required to do a background check (NICS) with the FBI. I would think the FBI would have access to a "suspected terrorists" list.. and I wonder why he thinks its a bad idea for the dealers to have that list..what the dealers just might shoot them on the spot? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 21 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Hold on now...these dealers are not a government run institution. They reserve the right to refuse service and sales to anyone if they feel it may be a dangerous situation. In fact, I'm not sure of the law but that extends to a lot of things that anyone can get "refusal" for. Like a late night drunken request for another round refused by a bartender. Perfectly legal. So if a person passes a background check. You believe a shop owner can refuse to sell a person a weapon based on his hunch the guy may be dangerous? The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to get served if you are drunk it does guarantee your right to guns though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, 1jkw said: So if a person passes a background check. You believe a shop owner can refuse to sell a person a weapon based on his hunch the guy may be dangerous? The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to get served if you are drunk it does guarantee your right to guns though. So you're saying a dealer would have to sell a gun to a drunk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, 1jkw said: So if a person passes a background check. You believe a shop owner can refuse to sell a person a weapon based on his hunch the guy may be dangerous? The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to get served if you are drunk it does guarantee your right to guns though. I don't "believe" he has the right to refuse the sale...I KNOW he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Hold on now...these dealers are not a government run institution. They reserve the right to refuse service and sales to anyone if they feel it may be a dangerous situation. In fact, I'm not sure of the law but that extends to a lot of things that anyone can get "refusal" for. Like a late night drunken request for another round refused by a bartender. Perfectly legal. But the drunk person has already done something illegal by being "drunk in public." (In my best Ron White voice.) I'm all for private business' to be able to refuse sale to someone but doesn't this bring up the discrimination side of it if they refuse sale simply because they look Middle Eastern or Muslim? The Orlando shooter may have acted perfectly normal when purchasing the guns. In fact I've heard of nothing stating he was on a no fly list. How does the no fly list banning weapons purchases stop this? Edited June 21, 2016 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I agree. And technically, I'm one of them. Something needs to be worked out, and something eventually will be. But I don't like one side or the other blaming all this shit on their opposition for political posturing. There is a reason it didn't "fly" and to go on record with careless and dangerous remarks deceiving the public ON PURPOSE should be criminal. The problem I see with all of it is, if you can legally buy the same gun from a private party with no back ground check what good is having the checks at all, second if we are going to start making decisions based on suspicion, not proven guilt or innocents, that's a road I don't want to start going down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, 1jkw said: So if a person passes a background check. You believe a shop owner can refuse to sell a person a weapon based on his hunch the guy may be dangerous? The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to get served if you are drunk it does guarantee your right to guns though. YES!!! it is a fact they have that ability. Edited June 21, 2016 by Rigid1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Highmark said: But the drunk person has already done something illegal by being "drunk in public." (In my best Ron White voice.) I'm all for private business' to be able to refuse sale to someone but doesn't this bring up the discrimination side of it if they refuse sale simply because they look Middle Eastern or Muslim? The Orlando shooter may have acted perfectly normal when purchasing the guns. Actually, the "drunky" hasn't done anything illegally, but it is determined they probably will be doing something soon. Hence the refusal. He's not "drunk in public" while he is in the establishment. And I'd certainly bet that most are perfectly "normal" when purchasing fire arms. Unless they are complete fools without any plan at all. And it appears, most have a plan. It also appears, the gun shop shot up warning signs about this guy and also did refuse him some sales. So... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold War Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 27 minutes ago, racer254 said: Yep, voters see this, including some of the liberals. I just listened to a liberal talk show where they couldn't understand why the democrats didn't at least vote for the 2 republican bills. They said it would have at least been a start. How much more proof do we need that it is all bullshit. I never understood the "it doesn't go far enough logic" It would be like someone owing you 20 bucks and you refusing to take 15. Watching a new program last night and it struck me ............When did we start electing representatives to sabotage the other party, instead of looking out for our best interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: So you're saying a dealer would have to sell a gun to a drunk? I was referring to the bartender refusing another drink. Not selling someone while they are drunk is different than not selling someone a gun because he might get drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Cold War said: How much more proof do we need that it is all bullshit. I never understood the "it doesn't go far enough logic" It would be like someone owing you 20 bucks and you refusing to take 15. Watching a new program last night and it struck me ............When did we start electing representatives to sabotage the other party, instead of looking out for our best interest. Or, when did we start finding it in any way acceptable. Hmmm....philosophical. And now...here are your two choices America...rat poison or cyanide. Choose wisely...or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 21, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Actually, the "drunky" hasn't done anything illegally, but it is determined they probably will be doing something soon. Hence the refusal. He's not "drunk in public" while he is in the establishment. And I'd certainly bet that most are perfectly "normal" when purchasing fire arms. Unless they are complete fools without any plan at all. And it appears, most have a plan. It also appears, the gun shop shot up warning signs about this guy and also did refuse him some sales. So... Actually you are wrong. While a stupid law it can be illegal simply to be drunk in a bar even if you are doing nothing wrong. I think each state is different. Unless your sleeping in the bar pretty hard to not eventually be in public to get home. http://vinepair.com/wine-blog/9-strange-american-booze-laws/ Edited June 21, 2016 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, 1jkw said: I was referring to the bartender refusing another drink. Not selling someone while they are drunk is different than not selling someone a gun because he might get drunk. Ya think? "might" being the operative word. But if a dealer thinks you might be drunk he can refuse the sale . Edited June 21, 2016 by Capt.Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Cold War said: How much more proof do we need that it is all bullshit. I never understood the "it doesn't go far enough logic" It would be like someone owing you 20 bucks and you refusing to take 15. Watching a new program last night and it struck me ............When did we start electing representatives to sabotage the other party, instead of looking out for our best interest. In Wisconsin I saw the democrats start it, and soon after, the republicans started to catch on. Like I have said before, liberals don't want representation, they would rather be told what to do. There is one party that you can always tell uses the logic where the ends justify the means. Edited June 21, 2016 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Highmark said: Actually you are wrong. While a stupid law it can be illegal simply to be drunk in a bar even if you are doing nothing wrong. I think each state is different. Unless your sleeping in the bar pretty hard to not eventually be in public to get home. http://vinepair.com/wine-blog/9-strange-american-booze-laws/ Probably because a bartender is not suppose to serve a drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I wonder if anyone has ever asked the FBI, NSA ect. how long they think they need to review and make a case to present to a judge to deny a suspected terrorist the right to buy a gun. No matter what laws are passed anyone intent on killing a large number of people will find a way to do it. If a person is willing to give up their own life there are many ways to kill a much larger number people, using things other than guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, 1jkw said: I wonder if anyone has ever asked the FBI, NSA ect. how long they think they need to review and make a case to present to a judge to deny a suspected terrorist the right to buy a gun. No matter what laws are passed anyone intent on killing a large number of people will find a way to do it. If a person is willing to give up their own life there are many ways to kill a much larger number people, using things other than guns. Ok, So you think all this gun control talk is just political bullshit like many of the liberal and conservative voters. They are starting to see through the crap. Edited June 21, 2016 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.