Arizona US Rep.-elect Greg Stanton looks to address gun violence at federal level

[Joe Link]

US Rep.-elect Greg Stanton looks to address gun violence at federal level

Read More

 

[Belevolk]

We shall see, background checks on the surface seems like a reasonable invasion. However anything medical will be protected by HIPPA. So the concept to me, right now seems like so much hot air.
I got elected so I need to show the base I am doing something.

 

[joefoam]

We shall see, background checks on the surface seems like a reasonable invasion. However anything medical will be protected by HIPPA. So the concept to me, right now seems like so much hot air.
I got elected so I need to show the base I am doing something.

Universal background check needs to be defined for me to answer properly. I seriously doubt that if it were defined 90% of the gun loving population of AZ would be in favor. It's also in how the question is phrased in polling. If it were asked 'would you be in favor of universal background checks if it would cut down on gun violence?' then the answer given by the uninformed would be yes. Gun owners already are aware of the background check performed prior to any weapons transfer. And as for him spouting off the standard 'common sense' talking points shows his ignorance. He was a terrible mayor and I expect no better as a rep.

 

[nvshooter]

There's that "common sense" garbage, again. The Evil Left uses that phrase to immediately disarm the thinking person before the real question is asked. "Common sense" to the Evil Left is that no common man have a firearm. Never forget that...

 

[targetshooter]

Is he looking to extend his 15 minutes of INFAMY? The only semblance of FAME he's had has been as a loser!

 

[Adam1182]

Where did he come up with that 90 percent part, because I know for a fact that the numbers are hugely against that made up lie.


And again, there's no such thing as gun violence. A gun by itself can not make anyone do anything on it's own. It's the person. Same with the word assault. Not select fire, no assault rifle. He's a bag of useless sticks from the mud trying to make words political as an act to achieve his agenda of gun control. What a disgrace to the office.

 

[billdeserthill]

Universal background check needs to be defined for me to answer properly. I seriously doubt that if it were defined 90% of the gun loving population of AZ would be in favor. It's also in how the question is phrased in polling. If it were asked 'would you be in favor of universal background checks if it would cut down on gun violence?' then the answer given by the uninformed would be yes. Gun owners already are aware of the background check performed prior to any weapons transfer. And as for him spouting off the standard 'common sense' talking points shows his ignorance. He was a terrible mayor and I expect no better as a rep.

I trust that you know better than to fall for the incremental creeping gun haters lies, Joe
They want full registration because at some time in the future anyone who 'loses' a gun for any reason must be punished, theft or not

 

[joefoam]

I trust that you know better than to fall for the incremental creeping gun haters lies, Joe
They want full registration because at some time in the future anyone who 'loses' a gun for any reason must be punished, theft or not

A politician lying? Surely you jest. Honestly, politicians are just like lawyers, if their lips are moving they are lying. I suspect the gov't keeps data on every form 4473 filed for a background check whether they are supposed to or not, so the gun registration horse is already out of the barn.

 

[billdeserthill]

A politician lying? Surely you jest. Honestly, politicians are just like lawyers, if their lips are moving they are lying. I suspect the gov't keeps data on every form 4473 filed for a background check whether they are supposed to or not, so the gun registration horse is already out of the barn.

10 years ago when I had an FFL the atf used to come around every year and take my records out of my shop which is supposed to be against the law

 

[joefoam]

10 years ago when I had an FFL the atf used to come around every year and take my records out of my shop which is supposed to be against the law

As I have posted here and elsewhere, if you think that the gov't doesn't already have you on file from when you filled out your form 4473 you are sadly mistaken.

 

[RobErvin]

Universal background check needs to be defined for me to answer properly. I seriously doubt that if it were defined 90% of the gun loving population of AZ would be in favor. It's also in how the question is phrased in polling. If it were asked 'would you be in favor of universal background checks if it would cut down on gun violence?' then the answer given by the uninformed would be yes. Gun owners already are aware of the background check performed prior to any weapons transfer. And as for him spouting off the standard 'common sense' talking points shows his ignorance. He was a terrible mayor and I expect no better as a rep.

Universal Background Check means you PAY to have your background checked for every private sale of a gun, and when the Democrats do the country like CALIFORNISTAN, you will pay to have it done for every ammo purchase. Soon you won't be able to buy GUN OIL or a HOLSTER without a background check. It's the REGRESSIVE way to stifle gun buying and use by stealth action.

 

[joefoam]

Universal Background Check means you PAY to have your background checked for every private sale of a gun, and when the Democrats do the country like CALIFORNISTAN, you will pay to have it done for every ammo purchase. Soon you won't be able to buy GUN OIL or a HOLSTER without a background check. It's the REGRESSIVE way to stifle gun buying and use by stealth action.

Still no definition of 'universal background checks' anywhere. How would they differ from the existing check done prior to any weapon transfer? Those promoting them are probably not aware of what a form 4473 is, and are just reacting to 'common sense' propaganda.

 

[joefoam]

Universal Background Check means you PAY to have your background checked for every private sale of a gun, and when the Democrats do the country like CALIFORNISTAN, you will pay to have it done for every ammo purchase. Soon you won't be able to buy GUN OIL or a HOLSTER without a background check. It's the REGRESSIVE way to stifle gun buying and use by stealth action.

Didn't mention the coming checks for ammo. You think the cartels aren't aware of the money to be made smuggling ammo? There will be brutal turf wars spurred on by demand for black market ammo. Of course the idiots that pass these laws are oblivious to the unintended consequences. Let the carnage begin! Hopefully on the steps at the Capitol.

 

[nvshooter]

Still no definition of "universal background checks" anywhere. How would they differ from the existing check done prior to any weapon transfer?

The "universal background check" thing means that every transfer of a firearm has to be run through the NICS system. We voted on such a measure in Nevada in the 2016 election. Question 1 passed by a nanoscopic margin but our State Attorney General Adam Laxalt refused to enforce the law, saying it was unenforceable. The campaign for Question 1 was funded by the usual suspects of Bloomberg, Soros and the regular gaggle of Liberty-haters.

What Question 1 wanted was that every firearm transfer had to be run through a background check. A father would have to have the handing of his rifle to his son background-checked. The son would then have to have the handing-back of his father's rifle to the father background-checked. If the rifle needed to be handed-back to the son a second time, that transfer would require a background check. If a third handing-back of the rifle ensued and no background check was performed, both the father and the son could be prosecuted for felonious transfer of a firearm. Idiotic, huh? Imagine this scenario happening way out in the woods because the son's rifle had somehow become inoperable. The son takes the father's rifle and shoulders it for a potential shot on game (requires a background check). The son doesn't take the shot and hands the rifle back to his father (requires a background check). Suddenly a big buck steps out of the brush and the father hands the rifle back to his son to take the shot (requires a background check). If no background checks were performed on the first two hand-offs, the third handing ("transfer" as the gun-grabbers would say) is the felony. Question 1 wanted such stupidity because it was written by dimbulbs who do not know from which end of the barrel the bullet egresses.

 

[RobErvin]

The "universal background check" thing means that every transfer of a firearm has to be run through the NICS system. We voted on such a measure in Nevada in the 2016 election. Question 1 passed by a nanoscopic margin but our State Attorney General Adam Laxalt refused to enforce the law, saying it was unenforceable. The campaign for Question 1 was funded by the usual suspects of Bloomberg, Soros and the regular gaggle of Liberty-haters.

What Question 1 wanted was that every firearm transfer had to be run through a background check. A father would have to have the handing of his rifle to his son background-checked. The son would then have to have the handing-back of his father's rifle to the father background-checked. If the rifle needed to be handed-back to the son a second time, that transfer would require a background check. If a third handing-back of the rifle ensued and no background check was performed, both the father and the son could be prosecuted for felonious transfer of a firearm. Idiotic, huh? Imagine this scenario happening way out in the woods because the son's rifle had somehow become inoperable. The son takes the father's rifle and shoulders it for a potential shot on game (requires a background check). The son doesn't take the shot and hands the rifle back to his father (requires a background check). Suddenly a big buck steps out of the brush and the father hands the rifle back to his son to take the shot (requires a background check). If no background checks were performed on the first two hand-offs, the third handing ("transfer" as the gun-grabbers would say) is the felony. Question 1 wanted such stupidity because it was written by dimbulbs who do not know from which end of the barrel the bullet egresses.

The regressive Neo-Marxists have one goal in mind with all their insanity. Make it too difficult and expensive for the average person to own a firearm with taxes, and fees, and nonsense restrictions. They have gone after ammo in CA. They are going after banks that do business with manufacturers and dealers.

Gun rights are under assault like never before. I saw one court ruling that claimed the Heller decision only allowed for keeping a firearm in the HOME. Like the BEARING of arms ends at your front door.

Stay vigilant.

 

[nvshooter]

Gun rights are under assault like never before.

This is because Trump is in the White House and the Supreme Court has gone conservative. The Evil Left is throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping for something to stick. They want to eviscerate as much Liberty as they can today so that when they fully control the government again, greater tyranny will be in-place and they won't have to waste time promulgating it when they have so much Freedom already on the list awaiting destruction.

 

[joefoam]

The "universal background check" thing means that every transfer of a firearm has to be run through the NICS system. We voted on such a measure in Nevada in the 2016 election. Question 1 passed by a nanoscopic margin but our State Attorney General Adam Laxalt refused to enforce the law, saying it was unenforceable. The campaign for Question 1 was funded by the usual suspects of Bloomberg, Soros and the regular gaggle of Liberty-haters.

What Question 1 wanted was that every firearm transfer had to be run through a background check. A father would have to have the handing of his rifle to his son background-checked. The son would then have to have the handing-back of his father's rifle to the father background-checked. If the rifle needed to be handed-back to the son a second time, that transfer would require a background check. If a third handing-back of the rifle ensued and no background check was performed, both the father and the son could be prosecuted for felonious transfer of a firearm. Idiotic, huh? Imagine this scenario happening way out in the woods because the son's rifle had somehow become inoperable. The son takes the father's rifle and shoulders it for a potential shot on game (requires a background check). The son doesn't take the shot and hands the rifle back to his father (requires a background check). Suddenly a big buck steps out of the brush and the father hands the rifle back to his son to take the shot (requires a background check). If no background checks were performed on the first two hand-offs, the third handing ("transfer" as the gun-grabbers would say) is the felony. Question 1 wanted such stupidity because it was written by dimbulbs who do not know from which end of the barrel the bullet egresses.

I see where you are coming from but closing the 'gunshow loophole' is mentioned in the same sentence as 'universal background checks' like it it's something different.

 

[nvshooter]

. . . closing the "gunshow loophole..."

The alleged gunshow loophole is a fabrication of Sick Willy Klantoon. I had never heard of such a thing before that erectile tissue took the White House. Same thing with "assault weapon." Just more Deception-crat deception. "Assault weapon" was coined by a Freedom-hater named Josh Sugarman in 1994 to push that moronic Klantoon weapons ban. The very sound of the words brings thoughts of violence to the minds of those who don't know obama from shoe polish when it comes to firearms. So many Americans have experience with their fathers assaulting their mothers, or of a wife having been assaulted by her husband. No doubt the phrase was focus-grouped and subsequently coined to elicit fear and loathing among the brain-dead of the Ignorant Left. It works very well, because the Evil Left and the Evil Left Media still use the term 24 years after its coining.

 

[joefoam]

The alleged gunshow loophole is a fabrication of Sick Willy Klantoon. I had never heard of such a thing before that erectile tissue took the White House. Same thing with "assault weapon." Just more Deception-crat deception. "Assault weapon" was coined by a Freedom-hater named Josh Sugarman in 1994 to push that moronic Klantoon weapons ban. The very sound of the words brings thoughts of violence to the minds of those who don't know obama from shoe polish when it comes to firearms. So many Americans have experience with their fathers assaulting their mothers, or of a wife having been assaulted by her husband. No doubt the phrase was focus-grouped and subsequently coined to elicit fear and loathing among the brain-dead of the Ignorant Left. It works very well, because the Evil Left and the Evil Left Media still use the term 24 years after its coining.

Fear and ignorance, the driving forces of the left, has been employed for decades if not longer. Goes to show that humanity as a species has not gotten more intelligent with the advent of instant communication. We, as a whole, may have gotten dumber.

 

[nvshooter]

Fear and ignorance, the driving forces of the Left, has been employed for decades if not longer.

"The only thing we have to offer is fear itself." Rush Limbaugh's paraphrase of FDR's "fireside chat" radio messages of the 1930s. As per usual, Rush is 100% spot-on when he describes the Evil Left.