Anyone else see the RMGO post on FB about the NRA being a sell out?

[asmo]

Have you read the underlying references to the Wiki?

More times than you could possibly imagine -- not only those, but the actual filings in the cases as well. Again, this is well known and very public knowledge.

[Gman]

I think that this quote from that Feinstein should be of more concern because its what I think they are up to,

"No weapon is taken from anyone,” said Feinstein. “The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...#ixzz2IxGGLGW8

Wrong thread. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

[Slapps74]

Yea just found that one. Removed it

[Ronin13]

WTF are you talking about Ronin? The NRA fought the AWB pretty damned hard and used its passage to defeat a lot of the Democrats who were responsible for that POS.

True- but they still allowed some "compromise." By comparison, today the NRA has stated that they will not support nor allow any new legislation. Compromise is done with. That's what I was getting at.

[Aloha_Shooter]

True- but they still allowed some "compromise." By comparison, today the NRA has stated that they will not support nor allow any new legislation. Compromise is done with. That's what I was getting at.

Ronin, you don't get it -- and you're not the only one. The Democrats were passing a ban in 1994 come hell or high water. I'm just happy the 10 year sunset clause got inserted or we'd still be under the damned thing. The NRA fought the bill as hard as they could and it still passed through so the NRA did the next best thing, they defeated a lot of the a-holes that voted for it. They're fighting Feinstein's latest POS as hard as they can and they have used the 1994 election results to try to keep Democrats in check (for the most part, successfully until this year).

Yeah, they didn't want weak cases to go to a SCOTUS they weren't sure about because a loss there is HUGE but they supported Heller and used that result to push other cases but they are not omnipotent and every loss isn't because they stabbed us in the back.

[MED]

I am going to be in the minority on this board, but we as gun owners really don't know how to pick our fights.

I do not have a problem with strengthening the background check system. Personally, I would really like to use a state background check on a private sale especially if no FFL was involved. I do a pretty thorough background check every time I lease my rental property.

Lets face it, there are nut jobs out there who should not own firearms among other things. There is a certain amount of due diligence we should exercise to keep our firearms out of their hands. Yes, they will get what they need, but it shouldn't come from us!

Our focus in this fight should be about the banning of firearms not the universal background check system. Actually, I am for strengthening it. I was absolutely pissed at Dudley and his antics toward Governor Owens and I get pretty agitated when he blasts people in the primary only to lose the general election. I will be really really pissed if he and others like him screw this up!

Anyhow, I said my peace.

[Gman]

I do not have a problem with strengthening the background check system. Personally, I would really like to use a state background check on a private sale especially if no FFL was involved. I do a pretty thorough background check every time I lease my rental property.

That's because you still own the asset. When you sell an asset, you sever any responsibility for what the new owner does with it.

There's no parallel here.

Sent from my tactical android.

[MED]

That's because you still own the asset. When you sell an asset, you sever any responsibility for what the new owner does with it.

There's no parallel here.

Sent from my tactical android.

Only that I do care about what happens when it leaves my possession. In all my actions that have consequences, (I don't think to myself...not my problem so I don't give a shit) Its more about due diligence.

The last time I leased my house, I caught a potential person that was convicted for fraud. ...so, this only matters if I have something to lose?

If I were selling one of my firearms to somebody that was stopped by a felony history or mental health hold, I find that valuable whether it was my problem or not. My wife's X husband was convicted for beating her and menacing with a firearm. Would you want to be the guy who supplied him with a firearm to do worse? I agree that any person intent on doing harm will do harm, but I do not want to be the person to enable it.

[Gman]

If you have a problem selling a firearm to an individual, don't do it. Your problem is solved. At some point you have to mind your own business.