Background Checks – What the Government Won’t Tell You

By Dave Dolbee published on in General, News

The President will get in front of a podium and make an impassioned speech about the need for expanded gun control laws, but what is he leaving out? Remember the President saying, “Even the NRA used to support expanded background checks”? What is the truth behind the NRA and background checks? Watch the video to learn the truths the President does not want you to know.

Did Wayne LaPierre’s message surprise you? Learn something new? Spread this message to shooting friends and more importantly to your friends and acquaintances who support gun control to educate them about background checks.

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (27)

  • jude

    |

    you insulted me gman.. I get insulted; I insult back. Tombstone is correct. I shouldn’t have said all. You could have addressed that instead of insulting me but you didn’t.

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ jude,

      So rather than take the high road to apologize and admit you were wrong, you instead waste such an opportunity to redeem yourself by further displacing blame for your own poor actions with the excuse that I insulted you first.

      Such a childish tit-for-tat mentality is immature and counterproductive. But more ridiculous is your claim that I had somehow insulted you first. Just because you may not like that I confronted your inaccuracies about something you wrote does not make for an insult. You need to learn the difference.

      Below is a brief summary of my post to you. A reasonable person could never have found my comment insulting as it simply stated irrefutable facts:

      1) I stated I was federal law enforcement of 33 years.
      2) I stated I would be interested to know more about this so-called law you claim.
      3) I then stated your claim was not true and actually the opposite of the facts.
      4) I stated the records are required to be maintained for 20 years or you go to prison.
      5) I concluded that since your claim is inaccurate, that provides enough reason to question the legitimacy of everything else you wrote.

      As you can see, not a single thing I wrote was insulting because it was all fact. Again, just because you didn’t like being confronted publicly with facts does not entitle you to call it an insult.

      Regardless, your childish and ill-fated attempt to fire back insults wasn’t even upon me, but instead senselessly attacked millions of Fox News viewers. How was that appropriate even if you were actually insulted?

      Even still, you continue to display how utterly ridiculous you have been when you insist in your latest comment that somehow it was my responsibility to “address” your inaccuracies rather than “insult” you. The fact of the matter is, I did “address” you, but you didn’t like it.

      I am under no obligation to cater to your educational needs when anyone can read you original post and clearly see you did not come in here asking for further information on a topic; no, instead you came in making a bold statement about the law as if you knew something. Thereafter I corrected you and you chose to get offended.

      There is really nothing more to be said on this ridiculous exchange you’ve brought upon yourself.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: