NRA set record for donations

[bwframe]

We'd be fools to EVER trust the left with our 2A rights again. The GOP itself is sketchy (some RINO's need culled,) but the left flat out tells us what they'll do to us, given the chance.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We'd be fools to EVER trust the left with our 2A rights again. The GOP itself is sketchy (some RINO's need culled,) but the left flat out tells us what they'll do to us, given the chance.

We'd be fools to single out one over the other.

 

[BE Mike]

I think the fear is coming from others and not the NRA. We are under attack from almost every corner (gun owners in general) and the progressives are chipping away at the 2A with every chance the get or generate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[bwframe]

We'd be fools to EVER trust the left with our 2A rights again. The GOP itself is sketchy (some RINO's need culled,) but the left flat out tells us what they'll do to us, given the chance.

We'd be fools to single out one over the other.

Says the guy voting for the Liberal dem anti-gunner for senator...

... Donnelly is one of the most "Republican" Democrats out there. I'll vote his way, solely because he won't be a Trump bootlicker.

 

[Jag3212323]

Says the guy voting for the Liberal dem anti-gunner for senator...

​

Donnelly is a blue dog & hardly a “liberal”. He was endorsed but the NRA during his runs in the House. He’s broken with Dems on plenty of issues, most recently was the confirmation of Pompeo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Restroyer]

Donnelly is a blue dog & hardly a “liberal”. He was endorsed but the NRA during his runs in the House. He’s broken with Dems on plenty of issues, most recently was the confirmation of Pompeo.

Donnelly only voted that way because he's trying to save his job. Look at his whole voting record. While he doesn't always vote with the Democrats, he typically stays true to his party. He's not a hard core liberal but I'd take the Republican candidate to protect my gun rights.

 

[Jag3212323]

Donnelly is a blue dog & hardly a “liberal”. He was endorsed but the NRA during his runs in the House. He’s broken with Dems on plenty of issues, most recently was the confirmation of Pompeo.

Donnelly only voted that way because he's trying to save his job. Look at his whole voting record. While he doesn't always vote with the Democrats, he typically stays true to his party. He's not a hard core liberal but I'd take the Republican candidate to protect my gun rights.

Over the last few years the only votes that could be considered “liberal” would be voting yes for amendments that would limit firearms sales to suspected terrorists while voting in favor of gun rights.

After 8 years of Obama and a couple of years with unified Democrat control of Congress, there weren’t massive rollbacks of gun rights. As a Blue Dog in a very red state, Donnelly isn’t a threat to gun rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwframe]

Over the last few years the only votes that could be considered “liberal” would be voting yes for amendments that would limit firearms sales to suspected terrorists while voting in favor of gun rights.

After 8 years of Obama and a couple of years with unified Democrat control of Congress, there weren’t massive rollbacks of gun rights. As a Blue Dog in a very red state, Donnelly isn’t a threat to gun rights...

Right , Donnelly voted to pull gun rights from those on the proven inaccurate "no fly list." Also pushing for the Universal Background Check, the first step to registration, which we know is the first step to confiscation.

Donnelly only breaks with the Libs when he has permission from Schumer because his vote wouldn't change the outcome.

The dems have established themselves as the party of gun control, its in their platform. We as gun owning Second Amendment advocates, would be fools to vote for a dem at any level.

 

[cbhausen]

Right , Donnelly voted to pull gun rights from those on the proven inaccurate "no fly list." Also pushing for the Universal Background Check, the first step to registration, which we know is the first step to confiscation.

Donnelly only breaks with the Libs when he has permission from Schumer because his vote wouldn't change the outcome.

The dems have established themselves as the party of gun control, its in their platform. We as gun owning Second Amendment advocates, would be fools to vote for a dem at any level.

^^^THIS^^^

If enough Republicans ever vote to do what a solid Democrat majority would do we’re already to a point we can’t talk about on INGO.

 

[Jag3212323]

Right , Donnelly voted to pull gun rights from those on the proven inaccurate "no fly list." Also pushing for the Universal Background Check, the first step to registration, which we know is the first step to confiscation.

Donnelly only breaks with the Libs when he has permission from Schumer because his vote wouldn't change the outcome.

The dems have established themselves as the party of gun control, its in their platform. We as gun owning Second Amendment advocates, would be fools to vote for a dem at any level.

That’s an interesting jump from every firearm sale requiring a background check to confiscation. Pretty paranoid since the rights of gun owners have never been stronger considering the technology that’s available now versus the late 18th century. Do “we know” that requiring private sales requiring background checks will lead to confiscation due to anything else that has happened in America? Nope. Go ahead and bring up other countries that don’t have the built in protections that we have here. The Heller decision via 2008 actually does more for private ownership of firearms than the Second Amendment due to the direct language used to exclude formal military training or membership in a militia as a potential prerequisite for owning a firearm.

If all you see is confiscation when the topic is background checks for any firearms purchase, you have been played in order to drum up fear to increase the sale of firearms.

The majority of my purchases recently have come via online sales and background checks at my local FFL which increases the cost to me but it’s an easy process which hasn’t resulted in confiscation and the ban on mail order purchases was put into place in the 1960’s after the JFK assassination.

I’m sure you’ll disagree with most of my opinions but the facts aren’t there to support your worst fears. If everything you said, comes to fruition, we’re still talking about 300+million privately owned firearms. That in itself is a pretty strong deterrent.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Expat]

How do you prove compliance if the guns aren’t tracked by some registration scheme?

 

[Jag3212323]

How do you prove compliance if the guns aren’t tracked by some registration scheme?

Compliance of what? Universal background checks? We have background checks in Indiana currently and I don’t register my firearms independently.

One of my biggest fears is that a firearm that I purchased from a retailer that I’ve sold to a private citizen would prompt me to be interviewed if something happens with a firearm that I purchased but then sold. I’m just looking at the background checks through a different lens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gmcttr]

....I’m just looking at the background checks through a different lens...

Which seem to be rose colored as the anti 2A groups attempt to chip away at our rights.

 

[Jag3212323]

Which seem to be rose colored as the anti 2A groups attempt to chip away at our rights.

And the opposite of the way those who are paranoid see things. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VERT]

Kirk Freeman likes to point out that Indiana used to have a UBC. Most people did not know of its existence and the law did nothing to help solve crimes. Without some type of registration process there is no way to inforce background checks on private sales. Even with registration there is really no way to enforce background checks on private sales. It will do nothing to curb crime and soon well intended people will want yet another new law.

I would agree that it would be nice if there was a way to voluntarily check serial numbers against a list of guns that were reported stolen and some easy way to voluntarily run a NICS type test.

 

[Jag3212323]

Kirk Freeman likes to point out that Indiana used to have a UBC. Most people did not know of its existence and the law did nothing to help solve crimes. Without some type of registration process there is no way to inforce background checks on private sales. Even with registration there is really no way to enforce background checks on private sales. It will do nothing to curb crime and soon well intended people will want yet another new law.

I would agree that it would be nice if there was a way to voluntarily check serial numbers against a list of guns that were reported stolen and some easy way to voluntarily run a NICS type test.

I agree with your last sentence. If all gun owners would be diligent when privately selling firearms I do think that a lot problems could be alleviated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thor]

NY Joe Donnelly voted for Obamascare every time it came up, he wrote op eds arguing for the Iran Nuclear deal. He is a left coast liberal lying in IN about who and what he is. If you don't think he would disarm the citizenry given the chance or orders from his political bosses then there are words for that kind of mental gymnastics that would bring the ban hammer when applied to a member. He was a loyal vote for Pelosi in the house and he's a loyal vote for Schumer in the senate.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That’s an interesting jump from every firearm sale requiring a background check to confiscation. Pretty paranoid since the rights of gun owners have never been stronger considering the technology that’s available now versus the late 18th century. Do “we know” that requiring private sales requiring background checks will lead to confiscation due to anything else that has happened in America? Nope. Go ahead and bring up other countries that don’t have the built in protections that we have here. The Heller decision via 2008 actually does more for private ownership of firearms than the Second Amendment due to the direct language used to exclude formal military training or membership in a militia as a potential prerequisite for owning a firearm.

If all you see is confiscation when the topic is background checks for any firearms purchase, you have been played in order to drum up fear to increase the sale of firearms.

The majority of my purchases recently have come via online sales and background checks at my local FFL which increases the cost to me but it’s an easy process which hasn’t resulted in confiscation and the ban on mail order purchases was put into place in the 1960’s after the JFK assassination.

I’m sure you’ll disagree with most of my opinions but the facts aren’t there to support your worst fears. If everything you said, comes to fruition, we’re still talking about 300+million privately owned firearms. That in itself is a pretty strong deterrent.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your background check did not include the passing along of serial numbers to the FBI/ATF. All they are told is that you purchased a long gun or a hand gun. The serial number only resides on the 4473 and the FFL's log book, which stays in the possession of the LGS, unless and until the gun is used in a crime. Even then, they can only "trace" the gun back to the original purchaser. If the gun is sold later in a private sale, the trail goes cold, which is the way it should be.

 

[Expat]

Compliance of what? Universal background checks? We have background checks in Indiana currently and I don’t register my firearms independently.

One of my biggest fears is that a firearm that I purchased from a retailer that I’ve sold to a private citizen would prompt me to be interviewed if something happens with a firearm that I purchased but then sold. I’m just looking at the background checks through a different lens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forcing compliance from licensed dealers is simple. They can show what guns they received from manufacturers from shipping inventories. If they get caught not doing it, they lose their license and maybe worse. In order for enforce compliance on you as an individual, how do they prove the gun I currently possess was sold to me by you and you ignored the UBC? I am a forbidden person and I say you sold the gun to me. If they can't prove you ever owned the gun, how will they enforce that law.

 

[Jag3212323]

NY Joe Donnelly voted for Obamascare every time it came up, he wrote op eds arguing for the Iran Nuclear deal. He is a left coast liberal lying in IN about who and what he is. If you don't think he would disarm the citizenry given the chance or orders from his political bosses then there are words for that kind of mental gymnastics that would bring the ban hammer when applied to a member. He was a loyal vote for Pelosi in the house and he's a loyal vote for Schumer in the senate.

Left coast liberal? He was rated the 2nd most bipartisan senator in 2017 due to his work with members of both parties in addition to his votes. But never let facts get in the way of a good story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk