If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Anyone else watching. Where the **** does Bloomberg come up with his flat out lies. 90% of people want to see mandatory background checks??? Really??? who are these 90%
Its not the background checks people are opposed to...
who are these 90%
He pulls statistics out of his ass and passes them off as fact.
He pulls statistics out of his ass and shoves them down your throat dirty.
Its not the background checks people are opposed to, its the registry. What he is saying people support is not what is being put through congress. I've seen a lot of anti gun folks use phony stats lately.
people infected with goat AIDS
Not to sound like a broken record here, but:
If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you're too dangerous to be amongst the rest of us, and you belong behind bars. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from getting a gun who wants one badly enough, short of incarceration
Anyone else watching. Where the **** does Bloomberg come up with his flat out lies. 90% of people want to see mandatory background checks??? Really??? who are these 90%
I'm against background checks. It's none of their damned business that I'm buying a gun, or anything else for that matter.
Not to sound like a broken record here, but:
If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you're too dangerous to be amongst the rest of us, and you belong behind bars. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from getting a gun who wants one badly enough, short of incarceration.
Linsky threw the daisy chain farm party at his house too.people infected with goat AIDS
The idea if preemptive incarceration because of what you might do is abhorrent
Where are you reading preemptive incarceration into it? I'm referring to re-evaluating our entire system of crime and punishment. My stance would be that violent crimes be punished more severely, and repeat violent offenders not be released.
I did not see it, but talked on the phone with my mother this morning. She said Lapierre is crazy and should listen to Bloomturd. I told her I didn't see it, but I believe Lapierre before I'd believe Bloomturd. She said "why do you need more than 3 shots", to which I answered "For when there are 30 soldiers or other bad people coming at me". I may be motivated enough today to rejoin the NRA now.
Is the guy doing the interview the one who broke the law, by bringing high capacity magazines onto his show?
Its not the background checks people are opposed to, its the registry. What he is saying people support is not what is being put through congress. I've seen a lot of anti gun folks use phony stats lately.
Everyone said that for the background check to work properly you need the registry. People believe the registry will lead to confiscation. So they're against the registry. Although people do support the background check, the question they should ask is: do they think they should bother with background checks since they'll be useless without the registry?
Even if there is a 90% who agree, I'm betting you'll hear a massive swing to the second question, which is why bother since they won't have an effect.
So Bloomberg can hype all he wants because he's preaching to the choir. His own guys admit that they know the registry will never happen and that background checks are useless without it and won't risk an election to get something that will have no effect. I have to agree with that thinking. Why risk your career because you're supporting a cosmetic agenda. I don't think anyone would argue with that logic.
The truth is, if you're in Congress and you vote for any anti-gun legislation you're signing off on the end of your career. It's been proven once before and it will happen again. With social media the word will spread like wildfire and if you thought it was bad back then you'll have a tough time getting a job at a fast food restaurant now.
I can't see either one making a meaningful difference with respect to crime.