Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
58. Gottcha
Tue Jul 15, 2014, 07:20 PM
Jul 2014


Just a little more to ponder. ..You seem to believe that the NRA is the mouthpiece of the "firearms industry". Why...why would the "firearms industry" not want the same level of regulation applied to every gun sold, as is required for every single gun they sell? You do know that every single new firearm sold in any state in the US requires a background check or equivalent, no? That there is only one very specific kind of sale exempted? That is a sale between 2 parties living in the same state who are neither one in the firearms business. That's it. Every single other purchase requires a check.

Why do you suppose those sales were exempted in 1994 in the first place? Why hasn't a single solitary bill ever emerged a judiciary committee regardless who chairs the committee? Since 1994! It is so simple. They can't find a way around the commerce clause.

You have been lied to. Why wouldn't Brady just make public the reason? Because their identity is built around "the gun show loophole". They know states can require bg checks, they know 80% of the public agrees (myself included). There are several states that would be very easily lobbied into it. The one hold up is that federal firearms licensees aren't required in their regs to provide bg checks for private sales. A simple regulatory change with absolutely no constitutional issue could be done via executive order tomorrow. With this states could require bg checks on private sales without having to spend millions reinventing the wheel (as those states which already do require ubc have had to do.

I don't recall ever being on any NRA website, am not and have not been a member, am a civil liberation Democrat and have been here a long time.
Why is it so hard to understand what "in a well regulated militia" means? It is the very weakest Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #1
Because the English language evolves pipoman Jul 2014 #3
Did the meaning of "militia" change, because it seems the same....just no reason for them now. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #4
"just no reason for them now" is your extreme minority opinion... pipoman Jul 2014 #16
And everyone else in the reality-based community would laugh... Oakenshield Jul 2014 #35
We have well regulated militias in USA right now Sam1 Jul 2014 #81
Because gun fanciers want/need their gunz. They don't care what it means or Hoyt Jul 2014 #12
Lol.. you are too much... pipoman Jul 2014 #17
The gun enthusiasts do not care for historical context, they care only for their guns. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #18
Your historical context is settled law... pipoman Jul 2014 #24
Bravo, a proposition of questionable merit followed by an inanity. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #25
There is another extreme fringe who believes there is a chance pipoman Jul 2014 #27
i absolutely agree with you samsingh Jul 2014 #82
It is telling that every example in this of restrictions pipoman Jul 2014 #2
there is no such thing as big gun control samsingh Jul 2014 #6
Almost every dollar can be tracked back to one billionaire's pocketbook. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #8
what about the nra and their purchase of elections? samsingh Jul 2014 #33
what about them? pipoman Jul 2014 #38
i think the nra's bullying of politicians to get their way is moe pertinent than goa and turkeys samsingh Jul 2014 #40
They couldn't "bully" (lobby) politicians pipoman Jul 2014 #45
Ahem. Steaming mountain of bullshit. gcomeau Jul 2014 #51
The man is a stinky high mountain of NRA propaganda, all laughably wrong on fact, long on yelling. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #52
Yet, to this point you haven't offered a single answer or citation pipoman Jul 2014 #53
he provided evidence that the nra bullied congress to go against public support samsingh Jul 2014 #56
see post 58 below pipoman Jul 2014 #59
Why do you suppose a Democratic congress can't get a pipoman Jul 2014 #54
I repeat my previous post title. -eom gcomeau Jul 2014 #57
Gottcha pipoman Jul 2014 #58
For fuck's sake... gcomeau Jul 2014 #60
lol...ffs indeed... pipoman Jul 2014 #61
And, again, you're wrong. IronGate Jul 2014 #63
And... gcomeau Jul 2014 #64
probably happens, it's illegal, beyond enforcement what do you wish to do about it? pipoman Jul 2014 #65
The point is that you were posting inaccurate information. IronGate Jul 2014 #66
simple explanations samsingh Jul 2014 #75
Keep denying facts as has been done for the last 20 years by gun control pipoman Jul 2014 #76
from CNN samsingh Jul 2014 #77
And what has big gun control done while the NRA pipoman Jul 2014 #78
Dems killed UBCs by bundling them with an AWB hack89 Jul 2014 #79
Also Telling... WillyT Jul 2014 #7
Hmmm....do you suppose the founding fathers pipoman Jul 2014 #9
Yeah... And As The Article States... They Were REQUIRED To Have Arms, Unless They Objected... WillyT Jul 2014 #10
No, only the militia was required to supply their own arms, pipoman Jul 2014 #14
But state constitutions from that era recognize an individual right hack89 Jul 2014 #80
Because it's poor grammar to use the same word twice in the same sentence. Hoyt Jul 2014 #13
The rules of grammar in legal writings are nothing like pipoman Jul 2014 #15
I can assure you, there is no ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment. Gunners know what it means, Hoyt Jul 2014 #21
lol...I'm not the one pretending "the people" doesn't mean "the people".. pipoman Jul 2014 #22
It is not acceptable to put the reason for the amendment in historical context, it would be obvious Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #20
Once again facts get in the way of the propaganda, same reason they reject science, too many facts. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #19
You guys. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #23
We have given the answers, the OP you have obviously not read has answers, you refuse to listen. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #26
well then, humor me...what is MICHAEL WALDMAN'S answer to pipoman Jul 2014 #29
Probably answered my own question.... pipoman Jul 2014 #31
this makes a lot of sense - individual gun lovers are the pawns of the gun makers who samsingh Jul 2014 #5
Individual gun owners are exercising their rights pipoman Jul 2014 #11
these are the rights that gun makers insist individuals have samsingh Jul 2014 #32
And the SCOTUS, and the vast majority of the public, and the pipoman Jul 2014 #37
frankly i think the President and the Democratic party platform on guns is vastly more sane than samsingh Jul 2014 #41
it needs to be rewritten so stupid people can understand Skittles Jul 2014 #28
Which stupid people? Those who believe pipoman Jul 2014 #30
that's not what the poster said samsingh Jul 2014 #42
Have you any answers? pipoman Jul 2014 #46
its first grade, there is a compound sentence - the meaning is clear samsingh Jul 2014 #55
This question is off the table forever...at least as far as either of us are concerned. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #62
its fundamental samsingh Jul 2014 #67
Yeah, fundamental lack of understanding of the document pipoman Jul 2014 #68
i don't think so - the nra, people who love guns, people who enjoy the gun lifestyle, samsingh Jul 2014 #69
As I've said before. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #70
as i keep saying, its the gun lobby that is selling fiction samsingh Jul 2014 #71
Some people require a boogie man to help them understand tragedy. ..real or imagined... pipoman Jul 2014 #72
no, some people are looking for ways to stop these gun massacres samsingh Jul 2014 #73
I don't know or care about the NRA pipoman Jul 2014 #74
ZOINK--You just broke the internet BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #36
This sentence is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment: needledriver Jul 2014 #48
The argument is not so much about the militia, JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #34
I suspect that there isn't pipoman Jul 2014 #39
the supreme court that stole the election from gore essentially voted that way samsingh Jul 2014 #43
Neither happy or not happy. JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #49
it's the same supreme court that ruled that corporations are people samsingh Jul 2014 #44
A much earlier court made that first decision. JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #50
The individual Right is implicit in the text FBaggins Jul 2014 #47
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Gun Laws And What The Sec...»Reply #58